'Losing patience': SC tells lawyers appearing for petitioners in Hijab row

New Delhi, Sep 21: The Supreme Court on Wednesday told the lawyers appearing for the petitioners in the Karnataka hijab ban row that it is "losing patience" and urged them to finish their rebuttal arguments within an hour tomorrow.

The apex court said it would give just one hour to the counsel for the petitioners to conclude their arguments on Thursday. "We will give one hour time to all of you. You finish that. Now, it is an overdose of hearing," PTI quoted a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia as saying to senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi.

Ahmadi has argued for one of the petitioners.

The bench, which heard submissions in the matter for the ninth day, said several lawyers have already put forth their arguments before it. "We are losing our patience," it said. "I must say, your lordships have heard us with inexhaustible patience," Ahmadi acknowledged in appreciation. "Do you think we have any other choice?" the bench asked on a lighter note. Observing that it would give an hour's time on Thursday, the bench said rebuttal cannot go beyond that.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Karnataka's Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi and Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj have argued on behalf of the state, while senior lawyers Dushyant Dave and Salman Khurshid have presented views of the Muslim petitioners.

Several petitions have been filed in the apex court against the Karnataka High Court verdict holding that wearing of hijab is not a part of the essential religious practice which can be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. The High Court had dismissed the petitions filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom.

Challenging the February 5 order of the government, the petitioners had argued before the high court that wearing the Islamic headscarf was an innocent practice of faith and an essential religious practice and not a mere display of religious jingoism. The petitioners had also contended that the restriction violated the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(A) and Article 21 dealing with personal liberty.