Claiming right under Article 25 and 19 (1) (a) runs contrary: Karnataka govt tells HC

The state government on Tuesday argued that the petitioner students, challenging the uniform/dress code as well as the government order on the question of wearing of the hijab, cannot simultaneously rely on both Article 25 and Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The Advocate General (AG) Prabhuling K Navadgi placed before the three-judge full bench the English translations of the Quran, relied upon by the petitioners as well as the Supreme Court in the past.

Quoting from these, the AG submitted that the verses quoted by the petitioners and books placed by him do not speak of hijab anywhere. He cited a Supreme Court judgment, pertaining to the sacrifice of animals on a particular day as an essential religious practice, and said the court held that reading of the Quran showed that sacrifice seemed to be optional.

The AG argued against the case of the petitioners that it is also their fundamental right, besides under Article 25, under Article 19 (1) (a) also to wear the dress in the exercise of a right to freedom of expression. “That argument runs mutually destructive and contrary to the present proposition. If their argument were to be accepted, then for the persons who do not wish to wear it would have been their fundamental right not to wear it as well under Article 19 (1) (a). With the element of option, it is either Article 25 or Article 19 (1) (a).”

Also Read | Muslim groups want hijab row resolved harmoniously

Concluding his arguments, the AG said that uniform is restricted up to II PU with an intention to give a secular outlook as stated in the preamble in the government order. He said to rule 11 of Karnataka Educational institutions (classification and) Rules 1995 only place a reasonable restriction in the name of institutional discipline. “It is this rule that imposes a reasonable restriction upon them on wearing hijab. And, this is only during the class hours and that too inside the classroom. Independent claim of 19 (1) (a) thus cannot go together with Article 25,” he said.

Senior advocate S S Naganand commenced arguments on behalf of the Government P U College in Udupi, its principal and a lecturer. He argued that there is a difference between an essential religious practice and the practice of religion.

Meanwhile, the bench disposed of the petition filed by the federation of private minority educational institutions challenging the state government order dated February 5, 2022. The Advocate General made a statement that the government is not interfering in any manner in the minority unaided institutions in connection with the February 5, 2022 government order pertaining to the dress code. In view of this statement, the bench disposed of the petition.

Watch the latest DH Videos here: