The advocate of petitioners, on Wednesday, told the High Court of Karnataka that even as different religious symbols including bangles and turbans are a common sight in the Indian society, the government has been targeting Muslim women only for their headscarves or Hijab, and this was a clear example of hostile discrimination by the government of Karnataka.
The Petitioner in the Hijab Row also said that this discrimination is even starker as there is no prescribed uniform for the students in Pre-University Colleges in the state of Karnataka and as a result, there is no particular rule that puts a ban on the wearing of Hijab in the colleges as well. Ravi Varma Kumar, the former advocate general of Karnataka, on Wednesday, told a full bench of the High Court of Karnataka that in case of absence of prescribed uniforms by the state, the efforts that had been made by the state government to stop the Muslim girls from attending classes just for wearing Hijab has amounted to discrimination on the basis of religion which is prohibited in the Article 15 of the Indian Constitution.
Kumar told the Karnataka High Court that Hindus, Christians, Sikhs have their religious symbols. He wanted to highlight that diversity and plurality had existed in the Indian Society and asked the honourable court why Hijab had been the only one that was chosen for this hostile discrimination by the state. He further questioned that should they be prohibited the Sikhs from wearing the turbans as well and the girls from wearing the bangles while they were studying in colleges. He asked why the poor Muslim girls were being discriminated against. Ravi also stated that Article 15 of the Indian Constitution states that the state should not discriminate against citizens on the basis of their religion, caste, race, sex, and birthplace.
He further added that prohibiting the girls wearing Hijab from attending classes in the educational institutions only because of religion is discrimination because there are no such prohibitions against those who wore bangles, dupattas, or were carrying the crucifix. The former Advocate General asked if people wearing the turban could be in the army, then why can a person wearing a different religious symbol, which is her right to practice religion is not being allowed to attend classes. He went on to call this decision a draconian one. He asked the court to take judicial note of the fact that among girls in the state, Muslim girls were the least educated and the least represented inside the classrooms as well. He then mentioned that if they were being shut out of classes on such grounds of discrimination, it can lead to doomsday for their education.
He argued in the court that the aim of education is to promote plurality rather than uniformity and that it was about unity in diversity. He also pointed out that there was no uniform for students in PU Colleges and there was no rule under the Karnataka Education Act of 1983 that prohibits girls from wearing a headscarf or a Hijab. He asked the state how these girls were kept out of class and under what rule they were not allowed to wear Hijabs and who had authorized such an act.
