Prez Murmu covers her head with a 'pallu', is it PFI conspiracy: Karnataka leader on Hijab row

Bengaluru, Sep 20: As the Supreme Court is hearing a batch of petitions against the ban on hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka, JD(S) leader CM Ibrahim compared Islamic headscarves to the pallu. He dragged President Draupadi Murmu to the debate as he claimed that she too wears a 'pallu' and whether the PFI is behind it.

"President Draupadi Murmu also covers her head with a pallu, is that a PFI conspiracy?" NDTV quoted him as saying.

His comments come after the Karnataka government told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the student petitioners who challenged the hijab ban in the state government institutions were influenced by the radical outfit Popular Front of India (PFI).

"Indira Gandhi covered her head with a pallu. President covers her head with a pallu, so those who cover their faces with ghoonghat are they all backed by PFI? Covering the head with a pallu is a history of India. It's a sansakar (virtue) of India," he added.

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.

The prescription of school uniform is only a reasonable restriction, constitutionally permissible which the students cannot object to, the high court had said. In one of the pleas filed in the top court, the petitioner said the high court has erred in creating a dichotomy of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience wherein the court has inferred that those who follow a religion cannot have the right to conscience.

The High Court has failed to note that the right to wear hijab comes under the ambit of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the freedom of conscience forms a part of the right to privacy, it said.

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.