The discrimination against Muslim girls is purely based on religion as Hindu girls wearing bangles and Christian girls wearing cross were not sent out of educational institutes, the lawyer appearing for the petitioners challenging the ban on hijab told Karnataka high court on Wednesday.
Arguing before a bench of three judges, comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi, senior advocate Ravi Varma Kumar said the plurality of India allowed for various cultures to showcase their religious beliefs and thereby sought to know why was the hijab only been chosen for this “hostile discrimination”.
“A girl wearing a bindi is not sent out, a girl wearing a bangle is not sent out. A Christian wearing a cross is not touched. Why only these (Muslim) girls?...Why only hijab? Is it not because of their religion? The discrimination against Muslim girls is based purely on their religion, and hence a hostile discrimination, which is violative of Article 15 of the constitution,” Kumar was quoted as saying by LiveLaw.
The advocate for the petitioners further pointed out that even Sikhs are allowed to wear a turban in the armed forces. “My submission is that if people wearing turban can be in the Army, why not a person sporting a religious symbol be allowed to attend classes...judicial note is to be taken that Muslim girls are least represented in classrooms. If they are shut out on this pretext, it will be very draconian,” he said.
{{/usCountry}}The advocate for the petitioners further pointed out that even Sikhs are allowed to wear a turban in the armed forces. “My submission is that if people wearing turban can be in the Army, why not a person sporting a religious symbol be allowed to attend classes...judicial note is to be taken that Muslim girls are least represented in classrooms. If they are shut out on this pretext, it will be very draconian,” he said.
{{/usCountry}}Kumar said that no other religious symbol was considered in the impugned government order. There are no provisions under the Karnataka Education Act nor rules of a ban on wearing a hijab, he added.
Justice Dixit, however, said: “Even if a person belonging to another community, a lady belonging to another community, suffers from alopecia, and to minimize the ugliness, she wears the headgear and comes to the school. She will not be permitted.”
The court said that because these are not mentioned in the Act need not mean it might be permitted. It is true that it does not say hijab should be permitted or not permitted but it has to be independently argued, it said.
The advocate then said the goal of education is to promote plurality and not uniformity or homogeneity.
The students of Government Girl’s Pre-University College began a protest on January 13, almost two weeks after college authorities issued an order banning the hijab inside classrooms.
The students approached Karnataka high court on January 29, but a row had already broken out across the southern state and several other parts of the country.
The petitioners have argued against a February 4 government order that states that schools and colleges will continue with the prescribed practice as was there at the beginning of the academic year. That is, if a school or college allowed hijab, then this practice would continue, leading to confusion and contest by the petitioners.
As protests for and against the hijab intensified in different parts of Karnataka and turned violent in some places, the government had declared a holiday for all high schools and colleges in the state for three days, from February 9, and it was subsequently extended up to February 16 for colleges.
The high court in its order last Thursday said that no religious attire will be allowed until a final verdict is pronounced in the case.