The petitioner Muslim girl students in their pleadings have not placed any material to establish their claim that wearing of hijab is an “essential religious practice” protected under the right of freedom to religion in the Constitution, Advocate-General Prabhuling K. Navadgi argued before the High Court of Karnataka on Monday.
The petitioners would have to first prove that wearing of hijab was a “religious practice”, then they had to establish that it was an “essential practice”, then they must show that this “essential religions practice” did not come in conflict with public order, morality, and health as per Article 25 of the Constitution, and with any other fundamental rights, Mr. Navadgi argued before a three-judge Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S. Dixit and Jaibunnisa M. Khazi.
‘Central role’
To a query by the Bench on whether there was a need for it (the Bench) to go into the question whether wearing of hijab is “an essential religious practice”, the A-G quoted the observation of the apex court in the Sabarimala temple case that, “the court has assumed a central role in determining what is or is not essential to religious belief”.
The petitioners, having come to the court seeking a declaration that wearing of hijab is an essential practice in Islamic faith, had the burden to cast upon them to establish their claim, he argued while pointing out that the Constitution stated only the right to religious practice but it was the apex court that had narrowed it to practices “essential to religion”.
No religion in schools
Referring to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s speech in Parliament during debates while adopting the Constitution, the A-G said that the intention of Parliament and the Constitution was to keep the religious instruction and religion out of the educational institutions, and cited Article 28 of the Constitution, which stated that “no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds”.
The Bench adjourned further hearing till February 22 and Mr. Navadgi said that he would respond to petitioner’s claims based on the Koran.
Complaint of ‘excesses’
The A-G told the Bench that he had advised the Chief Secretary to hold a meeting on a complaint given by an advocate alleging “excesses” by some school authorities in implementing the court’s interim order on hijab.
