Hijabs and niqabs are not an essential part of Islam, city college tells HC

Mumbai college argues hijabs not essential in Islam, defends ban in court. Students claim violation of rights. Court reserves decision for June 26

MUMBAI: The NG Acharya and DK Marathe College argued before the Bombay high court on Wednesday that wearing hijabs or naqabs was not an essential part of Islam and, therefore, does not need to be permitted on campus.

Advocate Altaf Khan, representing the students, questioned why hijabs and niqabs are suddenly causing disharmony. (AP)

The argument came in response to a petition filed by nine female students at the college challenging a dress code that banned hijabs, niqabs, burkas, stoles, caps, and badges. The college maintained that the dress code aimed to establish a uniform standard for all students, regardless of their religious background.

In their petition, the students claimed that the directive, issued via the college’s WhatsApp group, required them to remove their head coverings before attending classes, which violated their fundamental rights to life and religion. They argued that the directive was arbitrary, unreasonable, and legally perverse.

During Wednesday’s hearing, senior counsel Anil Anturkar, representing the college, stated that the restrictions were necessary to ensure decency and uniformity within the college premises. He emphasised that the college’s policy aimed to prevent students from openly displaying their religious identities unless it was proven to be an essential religious practice.

“This is so that students need not openly roam around disclosing their religion. People come to college to study. Let the students do that and leave everything else outside,” Anturkar said. “If tomorrow a student comes dressed in full bhagwa (saffron) clothing, the college will oppose that too. Why is it necessary to openly disclose one’s religion or caste? Will a Brahmin roam around with his sacred thread outside his clothes?” he added.

Anturkar argued that the students’ petition lacked bona fide and was filed solely for publicity. “I am implementing it for everybody. What’s the objection?” he said, adding that allowing such displays could cause disharmony.

Advocate Altaf Khan, representing the students, questioned why hijabs and niqabs are suddenly causing disharmony. “Most of the petitioners have been donning the attire for over two years. Now what happened suddenly? Why was this ban imposed now? The dress code says wear decent clothes. So, is the college management saying that hijabs, niqabs, and burkas are indecent clothing or revealing?”

Khan also criticised the perceived inconsistency in the dress code, which allows western clothing but bans hijabs and niqabs. “I don’t understand anything about the impugned instructions. As Indians, they can wear western dresses. It’s absurd that they cannot wear hijab or niqab, which are very much Indian.”

After hearing arguments from both sides, the bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil reserved its decision for June 26. Given the objections raised about the maintainability of a writ petition filed against a private entity, the court is likely to address this primary question first.

The students had initially approached the college principal, the chancellor and vice-chancellor of Mumbai University and the University Grants Commission with their grievances against the May 1 directive, before seeking relief from the court.