The state government of Karnataka asserted before the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the government order that sparked the hijab dispute was “religiously neutral” and blamed the PFI for the incident, which it claimed was a result of a “bigger conspiracy.” The state administration would have been “guilty of dereliction of constitutional duty” if it had not behaved the way it did, the statement stated, insisting that the movement in favour of wearing the hijab in educational institutions was not a “spontaneous act” by a small number of people.
Karnataka’s solicitor general, Tushar Mehta, said in court that the Popular Front of India (PFI) launched a social media campaign to incite unrest based on “religious sensitivities of the people.” Numerous incidences of inter-communal violence have been attributed to the PFI, which is largely perceived as a radical Muslim organisation. As a result, proposals for a national ban on the PFI have been made. The claims have been denied by the organisation itself. Mehta testified before a court panel made up of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia that the PFI launched a social media campaign early this year to raise awareness of the Islamic headscarf, and that there were ongoing messages on social media urging students to “start wearing hijab.”
In 2022, a movement started on social media by an organisation called the Popular Front of India and the movement, as an FIR which was lodged subsequently suggested and now culminated into a charge sheet, was designed to create a kind of agitation based on religious feelings of the people and as a part, there were continuous social media messages that start wearing Hijab,” Mehta said.
Arguments on a number of petitions contesting the Karnataka High Court decision refusing to abolish the hijab prohibition at state-run educational institutions were being heard by the Supreme Court. “We want to wear a hijab, but this is not a spontaneous gesture of a few individual youngsters. The kids were following instructions, and they were a part of a bigger plot, Mehta told the bench. He said that, up until last year, no female student in Karnataka’s schools wore a headscarf. Mehta argued that it would be incorrect to claim that the state government’s February 5, 2022 edict just targets one religion because it forbids the wearing of the headscarf. Nobody has mentioned to your lordships that there was one more dimension.
I would not be exaggerating if I say that if the government would not have acted the way it did, the government would have been guilty of dereliction of constitutional duty,” he said. “I would be able to show to your lordships as to how this problem arose and how the state, as a custodian of constitutional rights of everyone, tried to tackle the problem by order dated February 5, 2022,” Mehta argued, insisting, “It is a religion-neutral direction”.
By decree dated February 5, 2022, the state government outlawed the wearing of attire that compromises public order, equality, and integrity in schools and universities. Some Muslim girls contested the order in the high court. Mehta claimed that during the debates, when the problem of hijabs being worn in schools came to light, some members of other religions began showing up with saffron “Gamcha” (stoles), a Hindu holy sign that is similarly forbidden because it is not a part of the school uniform. He asserted that the petitioner’s attorney had made absurd claims about how the government was stifling the voice of the minority. No. The government had to intervene because of the circumstances created,” he said, referring to the tension the hijab and the saffron stole triggered on some campuses. Mehta said the state had directed educational institutions and not the students about uniforms. “You are saying that your emphasis was only on the uniform?” the bench asked. “Yes. We did not touch upon any aspect of religion,” responded Mehta.
Mehta also addressed the subject of the hijab being a mandatory religious requirement in Islam during the discussions, which will continue on Wednesday. He questioned how wearing the hijab could be a necessary custom since those in the nation where the religion originated do not fundamentally adhere to it. “In actuality, women do not wear the hijab in states or countries that are Islamic nations. They are combating the hijab “Mehta disagreed. The bench inquired, “Which country is that?” Mehta replied, “Iran.”
The death of a young woman who was arrested for disobeying the nation’s strict dress code has sparked protests across Iran. Mahsa Amini, 22, was purportedly imprisoned by the morality police for failing to wear the hijab, an Islamic head covering that Iranian women are required to wear. According to the solicitor general, the goal of the uniform is to ensure that nobody feels inferior because of the way someone is dressed. “That is why uniforms are worn. It is for consistency. It promotes academic equality for all students “added he. “Discipline is necessary. Here, we are not discussing any form of punishment that will injure them in any way “said he. Discipline means discipline. Here we are not talking about any discipline which inflicts any harm on them,” he said. Observing that students are not saying they will not wear the uniform, the bench asked about a situation where a student wears a muffler to an educational institution during winter. “That (the muffler) does not identify religion,” Mehta said.
The solicitor general summarised his points by stating that the government has the legal authority to direct educational institutions to follow rules and that schools have the legal authority to prescribe uniforms. The petitioners went to court arguing hijab is an essential religious practise but they could not prove that, he added, adding that it was a non-arbitrary exercise of government power, making it religion neutral. Senior counsel Dushyant Dave, speaking on behalf of some of the petitioners during the hearing, questioned why the state government issued such a prohibition 75 years after Independence. What prompted the need? Nothing in the record demonstrates that the circular was justified or supported by any legitimate grounds.
It came like a bolt from the blue,” he said. “So, suddenly you decide that you will have this kind of a ban. Why I say so… series of action in Karnataka targeted minority community in last few years,” Dave contended. Several pleas have been filed in the top court against the March 15 verdict of the high court holding that wearing hijab is not a part of the essential religious practice which can be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.
