Skip to main content
Sabrang
Sabrang
Rule of Law Minorities

How can a College Committee make decision on ‘public order’: Petitioners at Hijab Ban hearing

The Karnataka High Court, at the last hearing refused permission for any kind of religious dress in educational institutions

Sabrangindia 16 Feb 2022

Hijab Controversy

The Karnataka High Court bench led by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi continued to hear the petitions against the hijab ban in educational institutions. At the previous hearing, on February 10, the bench had refused to pass an interim order granting permission to the student to wear hijab or headscarf in class.

The Supreme Court as well refused to interfere with the High Court’s order saying that it will come in at the appropriate time and that it was very much aware of what was happening in the court and the state.

GO is erroneous

At the hearing on February 14, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat made submissions on behalf of petitioners against the Government Order (GO) dated February 5. He states that the GO says two things:

1. Wearing of head scarf is not protected by Article 25. Specific declaration made by State Govt

2. We leave it to CDC to decide whether headscarf can be allowed. Kamat submits that the first declaration is erroneous and the delegation to the CDC is also illegal.

Kamat argued, “The only aid to the State to restrict Article 25 is public order. Now "public order" is a state responsibility. Can a College Development Committee, consisting of MLA and subordinates, decide if this exercise of right is permissible?” He further argued that public order is not a mere law and order disturbance and submitted that "public order" was an essential State function and hence the CDC cannot be delegated to determine if hijab will violate public order.

He further submitted that the judgments of Kerala High Court judgment in Fathima Thasneem v. State of Kerala or Bombay High Court judgment in Fatheema Hussain Sayed v. Bharat Education Society, which the GO relies upon do not apply in this case since in one case judgement was passed in a minority institution the other for an all-girls school.

Hijab as essential practice

Kamat has made hijab as essential practice the core of his argument for the petitioners. He once again highlighted the Kerala High Court judgment declaring hijab as essential religious practice and submitted that the judgement states that if there is a practice which a believer thinks is part of his faith and that practice by itself does not violate public order or infringes upon anyone's freedom then the right to perform such a religious practice must be protected.

The Madras High Court judgement in M.Ajmal Khan v. Election Commission was also cited where the court had observed that there is almost unanimity amongst Muslim scholars that purdah is not essential but covering of head by scarf is obligatory.

He further cited the Supreme Court judgment in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v Shri Lakshmindar Tirtha Swamiyar of Shri Shirur Mutt whereby the court stated that matters of dress can form an integral part of religion in terms of Article 25. Further, in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay the Supreme Court held that "No outside authority has any right to say that these are  not essential parts of religion and it is not open to the secular authority of the State to restrict or prohibit them in any manner".

When the bench questioned if everything mentioned in the Quran was inviolable and essential practice, Kamat said he did not wish to make submission on the entire Holy Quran and said, “beseech your lordships to not get into that issue". He however submitted that since the Holy Quran itself makes a reference to wearing of headscarf, it is not essential to refer to any other authority and accordingly such a practice should be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution

Has hijab suddenly become an issue?

The bench questioned since when the students have been wearing hijab to which Kamat responded that they have been wearing it since their admission, 2 years ago. He submitted that they were only insisting that they be allowed to wear a hijab of the same colour as their uniform. He also pointed out that Kendriya Vidyalayas permit Muslim girls to wear a headscarf of the uniform colour.

Public order

The bench pointed out that the GO does not cite ‘public order’ as a ground to restrict the right to wear a hijab in educational institutions. "They have not said so...You are assuming it,” the Chief Justice said.

Related:

K’taka HC disallows wearing of any religious dress in class; denies interim relief to petitioners

MP: Goons harass hijabi students, demand saffron dress code

Hijab ban case: K’taka HC refers case to larger bench; denies interim relief to students

How can a College Committee make decision on ‘public order’: Petitioners at Hijab Ban hearing

The Karnataka High Court, at the last hearing refused permission for any kind of religious dress in educational institutions

Hijab Controversy

The Karnataka High Court bench led by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi continued to hear the petitions against the hijab ban in educational institutions. At the previous hearing, on February 10, the bench had refused to pass an interim order granting permission to the student to wear hijab or headscarf in class.

The Supreme Court as well refused to interfere with the High Court’s order saying that it will come in at the appropriate time and that it was very much aware of what was happening in the court and the state.

GO is erroneous

At the hearing on February 14, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat made submissions on behalf of petitioners against the Government Order (GO) dated February 5. He states that the GO says two things:

1. Wearing of head scarf is not protected by Article 25. Specific declaration made by State Govt

2. We leave it to CDC to decide whether headscarf can be allowed. Kamat submits that the first declaration is erroneous and the delegation to the CDC is also illegal.

Kamat argued, “The only aid to the State to restrict Article 25 is public order. Now "public order" is a state responsibility. Can a College Development Committee, consisting of MLA and subordinates, decide if this exercise of right is permissible?” He further argued that public order is not a mere law and order disturbance and submitted that "public order" was an essential State function and hence the CDC cannot be delegated to determine if hijab will violate public order.

He further submitted that the judgments of Kerala High Court judgment in Fathima Thasneem v. State of Kerala or Bombay High Court judgment in Fatheema Hussain Sayed v. Bharat Education Society, which the GO relies upon do not apply in this case since in one case judgement was passed in a minority institution the other for an all-girls school.

Hijab as essential practice

Kamat has made hijab as essential practice the core of his argument for the petitioners. He once again highlighted the Kerala High Court judgment declaring hijab as essential religious practice and submitted that the judgement states that if there is a practice which a believer thinks is part of his faith and that practice by itself does not violate public order or infringes upon anyone's freedom then the right to perform such a religious practice must be protected.

The Madras High Court judgement in M.Ajmal Khan v. Election Commission was also cited where the court had observed that there is almost unanimity amongst Muslim scholars that purdah is not essential but covering of head by scarf is obligatory.

He further cited the Supreme Court judgment in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v Shri Lakshmindar Tirtha Swamiyar of Shri Shirur Mutt whereby the court stated that matters of dress can form an integral part of religion in terms of Article 25. Further, in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay the Supreme Court held that "No outside authority has any right to say that these are  not essential parts of religion and it is not open to the secular authority of the State to restrict or prohibit them in any manner".

When the bench questioned if everything mentioned in the Quran was inviolable and essential practice, Kamat said he did not wish to make submission on the entire Holy Quran and said, “beseech your lordships to not get into that issue". He however submitted that since the Holy Quran itself makes a reference to wearing of headscarf, it is not essential to refer to any other authority and accordingly such a practice should be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution

Has hijab suddenly become an issue?

The bench questioned since when the students have been wearing hijab to which Kamat responded that they have been wearing it since their admission, 2 years ago. He submitted that they were only insisting that they be allowed to wear a hijab of the same colour as their uniform. He also pointed out that Kendriya Vidyalayas permit Muslim girls to wear a headscarf of the uniform colour.

Public order

The bench pointed out that the GO does not cite ‘public order’ as a ground to restrict the right to wear a hijab in educational institutions. "They have not said so...You are assuming it,” the Chief Justice said.

Related:

K’taka HC disallows wearing of any religious dress in class; denies interim relief to petitioners

MP: Goons harass hijabi students, demand saffron dress code

Hijab ban case: K’taka HC refers case to larger bench; denies interim relief to students

Related Articles

Sunday

03

Jan

Pan-India

Saturday

05

Dec

05 pm onwards

Rise in Rage!

North Gate, JNU campus

Thursday

26

Nov

10 am onwards

Delhi Chalo

Pan India

Theme

Stop Hate

Hate and Harmony in 2021

A recap of all that transpired across India in terms of hate speech and even outright hate crimes, as well as the persecution of those who dared to speak up against hate. This disturbing harvest of hate should now push us to do more to forge harmony.
Taliban 2021

Taliban in Afghanistan: A look back

Communalism Combat had taken a deep dive into the lives of people of Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. Here we reproduce some of our archives documenting the plight of hapless Afghanis, especially women, who suffered the most under the hardline regime.
2020

Milestones 2020

In the year devastated by the Covid 19 Pandemic, India witnessed apathy against some of its most marginalised people and vilification of dissenters by powerful state and non state actors. As 2020 draws to a close, and hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers continue their protest in the bitter North Indian cold. Read how Indians resisted all attempts to snatch away fundamental and constitutional freedoms.
Migrant Diaries

Migrant Diaries

The 2020 COVID pandemic brought to fore the dismal lives that our migrant workers lead. Read these heartbreaking stories of how they lived before the pandemic, how the lockdown changed their lives and what they’re doing now.

Campaigns

Sunday

03

Jan

Pan-India

Saturday

05

Dec

05 pm onwards

Rise in Rage!

North Gate, JNU campus

Thursday

26

Nov

10 am onwards

Delhi Chalo

Pan India

IN FACT

Analysis

Stop Hate

Hate and Harmony in 2021

A recap of all that transpired across India in terms of hate speech and even outright hate crimes, as well as the persecution of those who dared to speak up against hate. This disturbing harvest of hate should now push us to do more to forge harmony.
Taliban 2021

Taliban in Afghanistan: A look back

Communalism Combat had taken a deep dive into the lives of people of Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. Here we reproduce some of our archives documenting the plight of hapless Afghanis, especially women, who suffered the most under the hardline regime.
2020

Milestones 2020

In the year devastated by the Covid 19 Pandemic, India witnessed apathy against some of its most marginalised people and vilification of dissenters by powerful state and non state actors. As 2020 draws to a close, and hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers continue their protest in the bitter North Indian cold. Read how Indians resisted all attempts to snatch away fundamental and constitutional freedoms.
Migrant Diaries

Migrant Diaries

The 2020 COVID pandemic brought to fore the dismal lives that our migrant workers lead. Read these heartbreaking stories of how they lived before the pandemic, how the lockdown changed their lives and what they’re doing now.

Archives