Hijab Row In Karnataka HC: Why The Bench Said Advocates Travel To Foreign Nations Sans Visa!

After hearing the Hijab matter for eleven long days, the full bench of the Karnataka High Court has reserved its judgement on Friday. The court has asked for written submissions from the parties within 2-3 days. After which, the judgement will be pronounced.

A closer look at the court proceedings in the case reveals that the Bench comprising of CJ RR Awasthi, Justices KS Dixit and JM Khazi has been on the lookout for answers on whether Hijab (headscarf) is an essential religious practice (ERP) in Islam and if there is a violation of Freedom of Speech under Article 19 (1) (a).

Consider the following.

When representing the State AG Navadgi had earlier made a submission that if higher courts declare that any dress is "essential" to a religion, the consequences are that every person (in that community) MUST accept it. Then it will become an element of compulsion.

To which CJ RR Awasthi asked, "Is not restraining someone to wear what one wants a violation of Art 19(1)(a)."

Also, today CJ Awasthi had said to advocate Jha, "As far as religious issues are concerned, we have heard others."

A deeper glance also shows the Bench has broached over the issue of uniform in schools and the hijab.

Sample the following.

When in today's hearing on the matter, Advocate Subbah Jha referred to Allahabad HC ruling on a case filed by a lawyer for wearing dhoti-kurta by advocates in the courtroom in 1974 and argued that not permitting so was against national culture.

At this point, Justice Dixit said, "It was not school."

Jha then again quoted Kerala HC's judgement where the court rejected the exception taken by a lawyer for wearing black colour apparel.

Again Justice Dixit has then said, "We are talking about uniforms in school. How are these judgements relevant."

At this point, CJ Awasthi intervened and said, "You are emphasising the importance of Uniform."

Advocate Jha then replied "Yes".

The Key Takeaways

A detailed noting of the Bench's hearing reveals that the Hijab matter will be put to test on three cardinals.

• Is it Essential Religious Practice?
• Is Art 19 (1) (a) stands violated?
• How does Hijab fit in rules of Uniform in Edu centres?

The Interesting Story

During the hearing in the Karnataka HC on the hijab matter, senior advocate Jha referred to a judgement from a Malaysian court that had held wearing of turban by a Muslim boy was not essential just because the Prophet had worn it.

At this point, Justice Dixit said, "Advocates are travelling to foreign countries without visas."  

Torpedoing Media?

Advocate Balkrishna made a submission before the Bench that young children are being chased, photographed and humiliated by the media when going to college.

He said, "I have filed this PIL to restrain media from shooting children while removing their hijab. They all are pre-University college students and in the age group of 16-18 years. Under POCSO Act and other acts a person less than 18 is a child."

To which CJ Awasthi asked, "What is your grievance. Whom you are against?"

The advocate then pleaded, "Please pass an order restraining media."

At this CJ Awasthi said, "The petition dismissed. They can approach appropriate forum to file their complaint."