K’taka HC reserves order after hearing hijab case for 11 days

over him. Suppose there is misuse of funds and the Committee is responsible, who will hold the CDC accountable?” he asked. Petitioner-in-person Dr Vinod Kulkarni submitted that banning of hijab in schools and colleges has affected the mental health of Muslim girls. “Hijab is sported as a cultural practice and is a custom practiced for 1400 years,” he said. Advocate Balakrishna, in a petition, sought direction to restrict media from video graphing Muslim girl students wearing hijab. “The media is overtly or covertly doing this. Students are being humiliated and criminalized, their privacy is involved. There are shots of a teacher removing her burqa. There are visuals of girls being chased, when she removes her hijab, the media shoots,” he submitted. The bench, however, asked him to file a complaint with either the women’s commission or children’s welfare department, and dismissed the petition. Advocate Subhash Jha raised questions on safety, security, integrity of the nation. He argued that this issue has been brought before every High Court, and is a criminal waste of judicial time. He also sought directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and National Investigation Agency (NIA) to make thorough investigations with regard to massive agitation all over the country. Yesterday, Senior Advocate MA Dar contended that the rule of law must prevail because India is neither a Hindu rashtra nor an Islamic republic. In his rejoinder arguments, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat said that the State was citing Constitutional Morality to restrict choice, contrary to how the concept was used in pro-choice decisions of the Supreme Court. Navadgi had submitted that the practice of wearing hijab must pass the test of Constitutional Morality laid down by the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala and Triple Talaq judgments. The Muslim girl students from various colleges in Karnataka had moved the Court after they were restricted from attending classes on account of wearing hijab. Among the grounds cited in the petition is that the freedom of conscience and the right to religion are both guaranteed by the Constitution, despite which the students were singled out arbitrarily for belonging to the Islamic faith. On February 10, the Court had passed an interim order restraining students from wearing hijab, saffron shawls (bhagwa) or using any religious flags while attending classes in Karnataka colleges where dress code is in vogue, till the matter is decided. Another plea alleged that the hijab row is a creation of “tool kit”, having plans to create disturbance and anarchy in the country and bring down the government in power at the Centre