Can't take to an illogical end, right to dress is fundamental, then right to undress, asks SC


New Delhi, Sep 7 (IANS): The Supreme Court, hearing a clutch of petitions against Karnataka High Court judgment nixing wearing on hijab in educational institutions, on Wednesday observed that the issue is one particular community insists on a head scarf while others follow a dress code, and also the petitioners' counsel argument on right to dress cannot be taken to "an illogical level".

Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, representing a Muslim student, submitted that right to dress is recognised as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and saying if one goes to school wearing a hijab and that person would not be allowed, then the state violates Article 19.

Kamat submitted before a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia that Karnataka government's GO is compelling the students to choose between their identity and dignity and right to education. At this, Justice Gupta orally remarked: "You cannot take it to an illogical end... right to dress is a fundamental right then right to undress also becomes a fundamental right?..."

As Kamat replied: "I am not here to make cliche arguments... No one is undressing in school…", Justice Gupta said that no one is denying the right to dress. Kamat then said whether could wearing of this additional dress (hijab) be restricted on the basis of Article 19?

Justice Gupta noted that the problem here is one particular community is insisting on a head scarf while other communities are following the dress code. He added that students of other communities are not saying that they want to wear this and that.

Questioning the Karnataka government's GO , Kamat said there has to be reasonable accommodation for the students trying to exercise her fundamental rights under Article 19, 21, and 25 of the Constitution, and hijab does not create any public order issue. Kamat said if a girl chooses to wear a hijab, can the state prohibit this?

The bench replied: "No one is prohibiting her to wear the hijab... but only in school." When Kamat cited foreign judgments from the US and South Africa, Justice Gupta said "come to India", adding that no other country has diversity like India.

During the hearing, it was argued that the South African court had held that asking the girl to remove nose ring even for a short period would send out the message that she and her religion were not welcome. Justice Gupta said that the nose pin is not a religious symbol and women wear earrings all over the world, but it is no religious practice.

The bench said South Africa does not have a diverse population like India and scheduled the matter for further hearing on Thursday.

The top court was hearing a clutch of petitions against the Karnataka High Court judgment, which upheld the right of educational institutions to ban wearing of hijab in pre-university colleges in the state.

 

  

Top Stories

Comment on this article

  • AD, Mangalore

    Thu, Sep 08 2022

    Are the lawyers arguing their cases or are judges arguing with the lawyers?.

    DisAgree [1] Agree [1] Reply Report Abuse

  • Mohammed, Mangaluru

    Thu, Sep 08 2022

    When did cow become mother to bakths ????

    DisAgree [1] Agree [1] Reply Report Abuse

  • Monty Dotor, Mangalore

    Thu, Sep 08 2022

    This is the same question that I had asked 2 days before and many had opposed....

    DisAgree [5] Agree [11] Reply Report Abuse

  • mohan prabhu, mangalore/canada

    Thu, Sep 08 2022

    Where are thee arguments heading?????

    DisAgree [3] Agree [8] Reply Report Abuse

  • kavin, udupi

    Thu, Sep 08 2022

    Are they trying to solve serious matter or just trying to humiliate one religion belief?

    DisAgree [13] Agree [13] Reply Report Abuse

  • David Pais, Mangalore

    Wed, Sep 07 2022

    there's no merit in religious attire hijab & burqa dragged by dee's people's pure propaganda of their religion in da education institutions where uniform was prescribed. virtually hijab & burqa words r not at all specified in da whole of quran. if Dee's 2 words r mentioned in da quran Muslims would have given da verse 2 me & 2 da commentators to c.

    DisAgree [25] Agree [30] Reply Report Abuse

  • Moshu, Mangaluru

    Thu, Sep 08 2022

    If you don't speak, read and write arabic then don't mislead the viewers with false claim that God in Holy Quran didn't command covering body for women or dress code. The wordings you mentioned Burqa or Hijab which means purdah or covering is in hindi or Urdu but in Arabic it is called 'Khimar' which is clearly mentioned in Quran (24:31) and as 'jalaabee bihinn' in (33:59). Btw tell me did Bible advocate nuns to wear hijab in education institutions? Why you people possessing the nature of double standard?

    DisAgree [22] Agree [24] Reply Report Abuse

  • Mathew, Udupi

    Wed, Sep 07 2022

    Looks like the judge has made up his mind on which way the case will be decided. That's why such silly questions are being asked.

    DisAgree [16] Agree [32] Reply Report Abuse

  • MOHAMMED SHARIEF, JUBAIL

    Thu, Sep 08 2022

    Exactly... This is the problem in this case. No one questions the judge what the institution lose if a girl wears a hijab over her uniform in the classes, same like the jain teachers wear their duppatta over the head and christian mothers and sisters wear a scarf over their head and same like a sikh wears a turban over his head. Only muslim girls are prohibited from wearing scarf on their head and all others are allowed to wear same type of cloth on their head means.... there is some bias towards muslims right !! we have to call a spade a spade... nothing else..

    DisAgree [2] Agree [1] Reply Report Abuse


Leave a Comment

Title: Can't take to an illogical end, right to dress is fundamental, then right to undress, asks SC



You have 2000 characters left.

Disclaimer:

Please write your correct name and email address. Kindly do not post any personal, abusive, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful or similar comments. Daijiworld.com will not be responsible for any defamatory message posted under this article.

Please note that sending false messages to insult, defame, intimidate, mislead or deceive people or to intentionally cause public disorder is punishable under law. It is obligatory on Daijiworld to provide the IP address and other details of senders of such comments, to the authority concerned upon request.

Hence, sending offensive comments using daijiworld will be purely at your own risk, and in no way will Daijiworld.com be held responsible.