Daijiworld Media Network - Bengaluru (SP)

Bengaluru, Feb 26: Advocate Subhash Jha, presenting arguments in a petition filed by Mumbai-based lawyer Ghanshyam Upadhyaya, pointed out that successive judgements were delivered in the past by courts on the issues of Hijabs, beard, burqas etc and wondered why court's time is whiled away in deciding the things on which judgements were delivered earlier.

Ghanshyam Jha had filed a petition in the high court alleging that some Islamic organizations are behind the Hijab brouhaha and these organizations get funds from Saudi Arabia. He has sought a central bureau of investigation or national investigation agency investigation into these things. Presenting his view before the three-member bench led by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi on Friday, Jha said that the issues of Hijabs, beard, burqa etc have been decided by the high courts right from 1973 and wanted to know whether there is an end to these issues being raked up time and again.

He recalled that the Allahabad high court had decided in 1973 that uniforms have to be worn by the lawyers and the petition seeking permission to wear the Indian culture dhoti - Kurta was rejected. He also said that the Kerala high court has also decided on lawyers’ uniforms and wanted to know why the students should not have one. He said that it is not possible to follow the rules applicable in Islam 1,400 years back. He pointed out that women's empowerment is given importance in Saudi Arabia where Islam was born. Now, the women have been given permission to drive vehicles there. He stated that 1.97 lac women from Saudi Arabia have applied for driving licence and it is wrong to expect the women to move around covering their faces.

Jha said that the Hijab controversy does not seem to have started overnight. He stated that there are photo evidences to prove that the girl students were not wearing the Hijabs. Still, he said, protests started and serial applications were made in the court and senior advocates argued the cases. He said that all these are not happening on their own, but the Chief Justice remarked they cannot rely on assumptions.

The Chief Justice wanted to know whether the advocate has documentary evidence to prove his allegation about the involvement of organizations so that his demand for investigation by central agencies can be considered.