Hijab ban row: Petitioners allege “pattern” to marginalise minority neighborhood
6 min readBy PTI
NEW DELHI: Asserting that the hijab is the “identity” of Muslims, senior advocate Dushyant Dave advised the Supreme Court on Monday that numerous acts of fee like Karnataka’s scarf controversy confirmed a “pattern to marginalise the minority community”.
The apex court docket was listening to arguments on a batch of petitions difficult the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to carry the ban on hijab in instructional establishments of the state which have prescribed uniforms.
“This is not about uniform. I will be able to show to your lordships that by series of acts of commission and acts of omission that have happened, unfortunate incidents, I am not blaming any individual or anybody, but these acts of commission and omission show that there is a pattern to marginalise the minority community,” Dave advised a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Arguing that the nation has been constructed on liberal traditions and non secular beliefs, Dave, showing for among the petitioners, stated the sort of ambiance being seen at present was far faraway from being referred to as liberal which now we have been for five,000 years.
“You (the state authority) are passing this decision ostensibly saying uniform. Actually, it’s for another objective.
The entire concept is that how do I inform the minority neighborhood that you’re not allowed to profess your beliefs, you aren’t allowed to comply with your conscience? You will do what I inform you,” Dave stated.
“We have not hurt anybody’s sentiments by wearing hijab. Our identity is hijab,” he asserted.
The senior advocate stated the Constitution has all the time been interpreted liberally and by no means in a restrictive sense, and the scope and ambit of Articles 19 and 21 have been expanded in each attainable means.
While Article 19 of the Constitution offers with safety of sure rights concerning freedom of speech and so forth, Article 21 pertains to safety of life and private liberty.
Dave stated over 10,000 suicide bombings have taken place within the Islamic world, and in India, just one such incident occurred in Pulwama.
He was referring to the 2019 terrorist assault in Kashmir’s Pulwama the place a suicide bomber focused a convoy of safety forces, killing 40 of them and wounding many others.
“That shows that the minority community has placed its faith in us, the majority,” he stated.
In the course of arguments, Dave referred to some debates within the Constituent Assembly.
“My question is, to what extent the Constituent Assembly debates can be relied upon to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,” requested Justice Hemant Gupta.
“My respectful answer to that is, to full extent,” Dave stated. Dave additionally requested does carrying hijab quantity to threatening the unity or integrity of the nation.
“That nobody is saying,” the bench stated, including, “That even the judgment (of the High Court) does not say.”
During the arguments, which might proceed on Tuesday, the bench additionally requested about non secular practices.
Dave stated the non secular apply is what the neighborhood practises as a part of its non secular perception.
The bench noticed that historically, each time an individual used to go to a revered place, she or he would cowl their heads.
“In my respectful submission, school is the most respected place. It is a place of worship,” Dave responded, including even the prime Minister wears a headgear on August 15.
The Karnataka authorities’s order of February 5, 2022 by which it banned carrying garments that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in faculties and schools, was referred to within the apex court docket.
Several pleas have been filed within the high court docket in opposition to the March 15 verdict of the excessive court docket holding that carrying a hijab is just not part of the important non secular apply which may be protected below Article 25 of the Constitution.
The excessive court docket had dismissed the pleas filed by a piece of Muslim college students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, looking for permission to put on hijab contained in the classroom.
Challenging the February 5 order of the federal government, the petitioners had argued earlier than the excessive court docket that carrying the Islamic scarf was an harmless apply of religion and a necessary non secular apply and never a show of non secular jingoism.
NEW DELHI: Asserting that the hijab is the “identity” of Muslims, senior advocate Dushyant Dave advised the Supreme Court on Monday that numerous acts of fee like Karnataka’s scarf controversy confirmed a “pattern to marginalise the minority community”.
The apex court docket was listening to arguments on a batch of petitions difficult the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to carry the ban on hijab in instructional establishments of the state which have prescribed uniforms.
“This is not about uniform. I will be able to show to your lordships that by series of acts of commission and acts of omission that have happened, unfortunate incidents, I am not blaming any individual or anybody, but these acts of commission and omission show that there is a pattern to marginalise the minority community,” Dave advised a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Arguing that the nation has been constructed on liberal traditions and non secular beliefs, Dave, showing for among the petitioners, stated the sort of ambiance being seen at present was far faraway from being referred to as liberal which now we have been for five,000 years.
“You (the state authority) are passing this decision ostensibly saying uniform. Actually, it’s for another objective.
The entire concept is that how do I inform the minority neighborhood that you’re not allowed to profess your beliefs, you aren’t allowed to comply with your conscience? You will do what I inform you,” Dave stated.
“We have not hurt anybody’s sentiments by wearing hijab. Our identity is hijab,” he asserted.
The senior advocate stated the Constitution has all the time been interpreted liberally and by no means in a restrictive sense, and the scope and ambit of Articles 19 and 21 have been expanded in each attainable means.
While Article 19 of the Constitution offers with safety of sure rights concerning freedom of speech and so forth, Article 21 pertains to safety of life and private liberty.
Dave stated over 10,000 suicide bombings have taken place within the Islamic world, and in India, just one such incident occurred in Pulwama.
He was referring to the 2019 terrorist assault in Kashmir’s Pulwama the place a suicide bomber focused a convoy of safety forces, killing 40 of them and wounding many others.
“That shows that the minority community has placed its faith in us, the majority,” he stated.
In the course of arguments, Dave referred to some debates within the Constituent Assembly.
“My question is, to what extent the Constituent Assembly debates can be relied upon to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,” requested Justice Hemant Gupta.
“My respectful answer to that is, to full extent,” Dave stated. Dave additionally requested does carrying hijab quantity to threatening the unity or integrity of the nation.
“That nobody is saying,” the bench stated, including, “That even the judgment (of the High Court) does not say.”
During the arguments, which might proceed on Tuesday, the bench additionally requested about non secular practices.
Dave stated the non secular apply is what the neighborhood practises as a part of its non secular perception.
The bench noticed that historically, each time an individual used to go to a revered place, she or he would cowl their heads.
“In my respectful submission, school is the most respected place. It is a place of worship,” Dave responded, including even the prime Minister wears a headgear on August 15.
The Karnataka authorities’s order of February 5, 2022 by which it banned carrying garments that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in faculties and schools, was referred to within the apex court docket.
Several pleas have been filed within the high court docket in opposition to the March 15 verdict of the excessive court docket holding that carrying a hijab is just not part of the important non secular apply which may be protected below Article 25 of the Constitution.
The excessive court docket had dismissed the pleas filed by a piece of Muslim college students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, looking for permission to put on hijab contained in the classroom.
Challenging the February 5 order of the federal government, the petitioners had argued earlier than the excessive court docket that carrying the Islamic scarf was an harmless apply of religion and a necessary non secular apply and never a show of non secular jingoism.
