The Advocate General for Karnataka argued on Tuesday that the wearing of hijabs is a right that falls under freedom of expression, which is subject to institutional discipline, rather than freedom of religion in the Constitution, during a hearing in the High Court on petitions filed by Muslim girls challenging the hijab ban in some colleges in Udupi.
Wearing the hijab is an optional religious practice in Islam, according to Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi, who told a full bench of the Karnataka High Court, which included Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna Dixit, and Justice J M Khazi.
“Their argument is that wearing a dress to exercise freedom of expression is a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a).” “If their argument is accepted, then those who do not want to wear the hijab can choose not to wear it as well,” Navadgi told the court.
“It’s either Article 25 (1)’s right to freedom of religion or Article 19 (1)’s right to freedom of expression” (a). It’s impossible to be both… “If women have the option of wearing the hijab, it is a 19 (1) (a) right, not an Article 25 right,” he explained. “What is optional is not obligatory, what is not obligatory is not compulsory, and what is not compulsory is not essential, according to my argument.” As a result, it does not fall under the category of essential religious practice, according to Navadgi.
Hijab is not prohibited under any Law: Advocate General
“We don’t have any laws prohibiting women from wearing the hijab in our country.” The right to freedom of expression, on the other hand, is subject to Article 19 (1) (2), which allows the state to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of morality, public order, and decency,” he explained.
In his arguments, the Karnataka Attorney General stated that the right to wear hijab in colleges as a form of freedom of expression is subject to state education rules that impose reasonable restrictions.
“The wearing of the hijab is governed by institutional rules… In the institution, wearing the hijab is not prohibited. Only in the classroom and during class hours is the restriction in place. “It applies uniformly to everyone, and no one can wear anything other than the uniforms, regardless of religion or community,” the Advocate General stated.
Advocate General Cited France’s Hijab Ban
“While the hijab is completely prohibited in public in France, I don’t believe anyone can claim that the country is devoid of the Islamic religion.” He argued, “This is a test I want to use.”
Justice Dixit interjected to point out that each country’s constitutional system is unique. “The extent of liberty and freedom may differ from country to country,” he explained. The advocate general also argued that recognizing the hijab as a fundamental religious practice would make it mandatory for all Muslim women to wear it, which would be contrary to constitutional morality and individual dignity.
“The last submission is that, assuming the court accepts all of the petitioners’ arguments and assumes that all of the petitioners’ propositions are correct, would it be possible today, in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala case, to accept the principle of hijab on the basis of constitutional morality and individual dignity?” Navadgi inquired.
“Ultimately, if you look at the petitioners’ claim, it’s to wear a specific outfit, and if they’re asking for a declaration that every woman of a particular faith must wear it, wouldn’t that be a violation of the dignity of the person we’re subjugating?” This, in my opinion, is not permissible in this day and age,” the Advocate General stated. “It goes against an individual’s personal liberty and their right to wear whatever they want,” he said.