Senior attorney Dushyant Dave claimed that the hijab is the “identity” of Muslims and that many actions of omission and commission by the Karnataka state authorities revealed a “pattern to marginalise the minority population.” The Karnataka High Court’s decision to uphold the prohibition on the hijab in state-mandated uniforms at educational institutions was being challenged in a number of petitions before the supreme court, which was listening to arguments in those cases.
“There is no uniform in this. I will be able to demonstrate to your lordships that a pattern of marginalising the minority community has been demonstrated by a number of unfortunate incidents that have involved acts of commission and omission. I do not place blame on any particular person or party “Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia’s bench heard Dave’s testimony. Dave, speaking on behalf of some of the petitioners, claimed that the nation was founded on liberal traditions and religious convictions and claimed that the current environment was very different from what has been considered liberal for the past 5,000 years.
“You (the state authority) are passing this resolution ostensibly saying uniform. Actually, it is for some other purpose. The whole idea is that how do I tell the minority community that you are not allowed to profess your beliefs, you are not allowed to follow your conscience? You will do what I tell you,” Dave said. “We have not hurt anybody’s sentiments by wearing hijab. Our identity is hijab,” he asserted.
The senior attorney claimed that the Constitution has never been construed narrowly and that Articles 19 and 21 have had their reach and application broadened in every conceivable way. The preservation of specific rights, such as the right to free speech, is covered in Article 19 of the Constitution, whilst the protection of life and individual freedom is covered in Article 21. Dave claimed that while there have been over 10,000 suicide bombings in the Islamic world, there has only been one such incidence in India—Pulwama. He was alluding to the terrorist attack that took place in Pulwama, Kashmir, in 2019, in which a suicide bomber attacked a security force convoy, killing 40 people and injuring dozens more.
“That shows that the minority community has placed its faith in us, the majority,” he said.
Dave brought up certain Constituent Assembly debates during discussions. Justice Hemant Gupta questioned, “to what extent the discussions of the Constituent Assembly may be relied upon to interpret the provisions of the Constitution.” To the fullest extent, is my courteous response to it, Dave added. Dave further questioned whether donning a hijab constitutes a danger to the integrity or unity of the nation. The bench declared that “none is stating,” adding, “Even the ruling (of the high court) does not say.” The bench also inquired about religious practices during the proceedings, which will go on into Tuesday. Dave claimed that the community’s religious beliefs are expressed through its religious practices.
The bench said that in the past, people would typically cover their heads before entering a revered location. “I humbly submit that school is the most revered setting. It is a house of prayer “In response, Dave said that on August 15, even the prime minister wore a cap. In the highest court, it was mentioned that the Karnataka government’s order of February 5, 2022, prohibits wearing clothing that disturbs equity, integrity, and public order in schools and institutions. The high court’s March 15 ruling that the wearing of the hijab is not a fundamental religious practice that is entitled to protection under Article 25 of the Constitution has been challenged in a number of ways.
The high court had dismissed the pleas filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom. Challenging the February 5 order of the government, the petitioners had argued before the high court that wearing the Islamic headscarf was an innocent practice of faith and an essential religious practice and not a display of religious jingoism.
