|HT|
A senior counsel on Wednesday said no fundamental right is absolute and in the controversy over a ban on hijab, the authority of the educational institution cannot be belittled. A full bench of the Karnataka high court is hearing a batch of petitions filed by some Muslim girls against a ban on wearing hijab inside educational institutions.
Senior advocate S Naganand made his submissions on behalf of Udupi-based pre university college, some of whose students have moved the HC, opposing the petition. The counsel submitted photocopies of Aadhaar cards of some of the petitioners without the headscarves. “It is not as if the students are professing that they should be always wearing the hijab in public,” the senior counsel told the bench, comprising chief justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, justice J M Khazi and justice Krishna S Dixit.
He said there had been a uniform for students for years and everything was peaceful. It was only after organisations like the Campus Front of India (CFI) instigated the students and parents that the controversy erupted and the entire education system was suffering. Naganand, who is representing the Government PU College for Girls, its principal Rudre Gowda and a teacher, said the institution did not have any rule on hijab-wearing as such since no one used to wear it in the classroom in the last 35 years. The students who came with the demand had the backing of outside forces.
On January 1, six students of a college in Udupi attended a press conference held by the CFI in the coastal town protesting against the college authorities denying them entry into classrooms wearing hijab. This was four days after they requested the principal permission to wear hijab in classes which was not allowed, he said. The high court then sought to know from the state government to know more about the CFI from the government.
The senior counsel said the outfit was coordinating and organising protests in the state. "It is also a voluntary organisation, which is spearheading and drumbeating in favour of students (demanding wearing of hijab in class-rooms)". Another lawyer said the CFI is a radical organisation, which is not recognised by the colleges.
“Let the drum beaters on roads not threaten society. We're a harmonious society. In fact, in Udupi, I personally know that a large number of Muslims live near Krishna Matha and there is complete harmony,” Naganand added.
He further said that no fundamental right is absolute. Article 25 starts with "subject to". My right for peaceful existence cannot be threatened by somebody saying I want to exercise my religious rights. SC has said in many decisions.” “This is a simple issue, let children come to school and don't wear the external symbols of religion. Now a right wing association of Hindus wants to wear saffron shawls. Tomorrow, Muslim boys will want to wear skull cap. Where is this going to end?”
“Freedom of conscience is that voice which we hear from the recesses of our heart… Freedom of conscience means…. what your heart tells you. The Constitution makers wanted a person to have his own freedom of thought process. So freedom of conscience,” he further said.
A day ago, the government had told the court there is no discrimination based on religion as far as the ban on hijab is concerned. It said there was no restriction on wearing hijab, but only within classrooms and during class hours and that wearing it is not compulsory.
(Except for the headline and the pictorial description, this story has not been edited by THE DEN staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)