The High Court hearing on the hijab row entered the ninth day on Monday, with a 3-judge bench presiding over the matter.
Senior Advocate S Nagananad began arguments on behalf of the Pre-University College.
The counsel continued his submissions on behalf of PU College opposing the hijab.
The counsel showed the bench a picture of the Aadhaar card of two of the petitioners which showed them not wearing a hijab.
The High Court sought to know from the state government the role of the Campus Front of India (CFI).
On January one, six girl students of a college in Udupi attended a press conference held by the CFI in the coastal town protesting against the college authorities denying them entry into classrooms wearing hijab.
The Counsel for the PU College, Nagananad, told the Karnataka HC that the Campus Front of India (CFI) was a radical organisation that spearheaded this drum beating for the hijab. He added that they were not a union recognised by any school or college and that they were just creating a commotion.
He added, “Representatives of the CFI came and met the college authorities saying the students should be allowed to wear hijabs. Only after that, ruckus started happening and students started protesting.”
SS Naganand referred to the Aadhaar cards of petitioners and said that photographs were taken without hijab. So it is not as if these students are professing any faith in that sense that they must always be wearing hijab in public, Advocate Naganand said.
It was decided in 2004 to make uniforms compulsory. There was no problem and students were attending classes. Karnataka government has not prescribed any uniforms. The government has left it to the institutions to decide on the issue of uniforms and our college has been making these decisions since 2004 without any objections, Naganand argued.
Naganand referred that the College Development Council (CDC) is a body acting on behalf of the college. It is a representative body. CDC has prescribed the uniform. It was not a problem 20 years ago.
He referred to the noise pollution case where Hindu petitioners made a plea that bursting crackers is part of their festival and must be permitted.
"Another argument that has been put forward to remove the restrictions during festivals is that they are celebrated by most of the people and that an inconvenience to a few should not become the reason for restraining a greater lot," Advocate Naganand read the order.
The Karnataka government on Tuesday told the High Court that there is no restriction on wearing Hijab in India with reasonable restrictions subject to institutional discipline and dismissed the charge that denial to wear the headscarf was a violation of Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination of every sort.
On Tuesday, Feb 22, the Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi argued that the right to wear hijabs falls under Article 19 and not under Article of the Indian Constitution, as argued by the petitioners.
(with sources inputs)
