Hijab movement started with design to create unrest: Karnataka govt tells SC

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said if the government had not acted, it would have been guilty of dereliction of duty

The Karnataka government on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that till 2021, no girl student was wearing hijab in Pre-University colleges, but a movement was started on social media by the Popular Front of India as part of larger design to create unrest, forcing the state as custodian of constitutional rights to intervene into the matter.

"It was not a spontaneous reaction, but a part of larger conspiracy in the middle of academic year to engineer social unrest. This sudden upsurge in demand to wear hijab was not original thinking by the students," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia.

While arguing to defend the February 5 government notification on banning hijab, he said it would be doing disservice to contend the order targeted one community as it prohibited saffron muffler, gamcha etc., too.

Read | We must preserve syncretic culture, Supreme Court told on hijab ban matter

Referring to the attempt to create unrest, he said if the government had not acted, it would have been guilty of dereliction of duty. The purpose of prescribing uniform was to ensure equality, equity and uniformity, he asserted.

In his submission, Mehta also said India is a secular nation and even in countries, which are constitutionally Islamic like Iran, not all women are wearing hijab. They are fighting against it.

He also maintained that mere mention of hijab in Quran makes it a religious practice, but not essential. The practice has to co-exist with the religion in order to be sustained, he added.

Karnataka's Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi said that protecting every aspect of religion becomes practically impossible. Therefore, the theory of essential religious practice was evolved.

During the hearing, the bench said the petitioners never said they won't wear uniform. It asked if a child wears a muffler during winters, would this be prevented.

To this, Mehta said the rule says there cannot be a religious identity and uniform is uniform, and in a secular school, one has to wear the uniform.

The court also observed that must be proved beyond doubt that the wearing of the hijab was a threat to public order, public health or morality.

The court also said that the Karnataka High Court should have not gone into the essential religious practice test.

On this, Mehta said that the High Court could have avoided going into the essential religious practice issue, but it was the petitioners who moved the court raising the argument that hijab was an essential practice.

The court would continue to hear the matter arising out of March 15 judgement of the Karnataka High Court upholding hijab ban.