The Supreme Court resumed hearing in the Karnataka hijab case on Tuesday. The petitions by students challenging the Karnataka High Court's order upholding the ban on wearing hijab by Muslim girl students in the state, is being heard by a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia told Dave that the definition of dignity has changed with time, and it keeps changing.
The apex court is hearing petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgement of March 15 upholding the ban on hijab in pre-university colleges.
Dave argued that girls wearing hijab to school do not violate anybody's peace and safety, and there is certainly no danger to tranquility. And, there is only one aspect of public order which could be argued, he added.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stressed that not only hijab but saffron shawls are also prohibited. He quoted the government's circular which read, "If no uniform is prescribed, students must wear dress which goes along with the idea of equality, unity of India and law and order."
In summarising his arguments, SG Mehta said, "There is a statutory power to prescribe uniforms by schools. There is a statutory power in the govt to issue directions to school to ensure compliance with rules. There was a good and reasonable justification for the exercise of power. It was a non-arbitrary exercise, making it religion neutral. They went before Court claiming it is essential religious practice but could not establish as per settled criteria."
Mehta, during the hearing also said that no student was insisting on hijab until 2022. He alleged that a "larger conspiracy" was orchestrated by the Popular Front of India to create social unrest. He further said that the messages were spread using social media.
Advocate General of Karnataka, Prabhuling K Navadgi begins arguments by saying that there is a distinction betweem religious matters and social political and economic matters associated with religious matter which State can regulate, further adding that the state can regulate secular activities related with religion but not religion itself.
He added, "Protecting every aspect of religion has become practically impossible. Therefore, the theory of essential religious practice was evolved."
The SC bench has concluded the arguments for today and is set to hear the petitions tomorrow.
