While other religious symbols such as bangles and turbans are prevalent in Indian society, the government’s targeting of Muslim women for their headscarves is an example of “hostile discrimination,” the petitioners’ attorney said the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday during the hijab issue hearing. He also noted that the discrimination is exacerbated by the fact that there is no specified uniform for students attending pre-university colleges in the state, and hence no rule prohibiting the hijab.
Former Karnataka Advocate General Ravi Varma Kumar informed a full bench of the Karnataka High Court that the efforts being taken to dissuade Muslim females wearing hijab from attending courses constituted “discrimination” on the basis of religion, which is forbidden under Article 15 of the Constitution.
“Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians all have their own distinctive religious symbols like bangles and turbans. I wish to emphasise our society’s plurality and diversity. Why was the hijab chosen solely for the purpose of hostile discrimination? Is it not for religious reasons?” Kumar testified in court.
Bangles and Turban are symbols of Hindu and Sikhism but allowed
“Should we prevent Sikhs from wearing turbans?” Girls, too, wear bangles. Why is there discrimination against impoverished Muslim girls?” he enquired, citing Article 15 of the Constitution, which states that the state shall not discriminate against citizens on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
Preventing girls wearing hijab from attending classes is “purely religious,” Kumar explained, because such “discrimination” does not exist against those wearing dupatta, bangles, bindi, or carrying a crucifix.
“If a person wearing a turban is allowed to serve in the army, why is it that a person wearing a religious symbol — (it is) her right to profess her faith (Hijab, Bangles, or Bindis) — is not permitted to attend classes?” It is a draconian choice in an age when universal education, particularly for females, is wanted. The court may take judicial notice of the fact that Muslim girls have the lowest educational attainment and are underrepresented in classrooms. If they are denied admission on the basis of such discrimination, it will spell the end of their studies,” the former AG stated.
Additionally, he maintained that the purpose of education is to foster multiplicity, not conformity. “It’s about finding unity inside variety,” Kumar explained.
Pre-University has no dress code
He further noted that Pre-University institutions do not require students to wear uniforms and that there is no provision in the Karnataka Education Act of 1983 prohibiting students from wearing the hijab. “What I want to know is how and under what regulation I am being kept out of class. “Who sanctioned such an act?” he inquired.
According to a prospectus for state-run pre-university colleges, advocating any type of uniform for pupils is forbidden. “It is a reality that no uniform is required. Additionally, the government order recognises the reality that the government does not dictate uniforms,” Kumar remarked.
Yusuf Muchhala, a senior counsel who argued on behalf of the Udupi college students, stated that any government decree prohibiting girls wearing the hijab from attending courses is comparable to what the courts refer to as “manifest arbitrariness.” Additionally, it breaches the legal “doctrine of proportionality,” he noted.