New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the petitions challenging the ban on wearing hijab in schools in Karnataka after 10 days of arguments before the bench.
The government was represented by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, ASG KM Nataraj, and Karnataka Advocate General Prabhulinga Navadgi.
The court granted time to the petitioner’s lawyers to give rebuttal arguments against the stand taken by the government.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who represents the Muslim petitioners, criticised the solicitor for bringing up the “irrelevant” issue of the PFI’s involvement and the “conspiracy” to incite street protests, India Today reported.
Quoting an order passed by a different bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday over sensationalism and hate speech in the media, Dave argued that the submissions made by the SG had “created prejudice” when the issue before the court was constitutional rights.
Dave also argued that the state had the “right to renounce its own circular.” Dave and other petitioners had submitted a circular issued by the Karnataka Education Department in 2021, which clearly stated that uniforms are not mandatory in government PU colleges and that any mandatory uniforms imposed by the college administration could attract punishment.
“The SG has said their own guidelines are unsubstantiated arguments. Their own affidavit gives the guidelines for 2022, which says uniforms are not compulsory. How are they disowning their own guidelines?” questioned Dave.
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi also argued that “no cogent reason is given for how wearing hijab will impair education or discipline.”
Arguments were also submitted by senior advocates Salman Khurshid, Devdatt Kamat and Sanjay Hegde for rebuttal.
The issue involves the interpretation of whether the hijab is an essential religious practice of Islam and also constitutional law questions the right to freedom of conscience, culture, privacy, and dignity.
The Muslim petitioners have also argued that since it is an issue of interpretation of religion and the scope of the government’s power to regulate religious practice, it should be referred to the nine-judge bench set up for the Sabarimala and other religion-gender issue cases.
With Justice Hemant Gupta scheduled to retire on October 16 this year, the verdict in the matter is expected before his retirement date.
Comments are closed.