Today, AG Navadgi resumed his submissions on the point that wearing of hijab was not an essential religious practice of Islam.
“If it is not obligatory it is not compulsory. What is not compulsory is not essential. Therefore, it does not fall within the realm of essential religious practice,” he said.
He contended that the stand of the petitioners that the right to wear hijab is part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), was “mutually destructive.”
“If their argument is accepted, then persons who do not wish to wear it would have fundamental right not to wear it. That means element of option is there…You cannot argue both Article 25 and Article 19(1)(a)…They are mutually destructive.”
Chief Justice Awasthi then asked,
“Suppose if someone wants to wear it under Article 19(1)(a) and you are restraining it, then are you not restricting their fundamental right?”
Reiterating that there is no hijab ban in the country, Navadgi said,
“The right to wear hijab under 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions under 19(2). In our case, Rule 11 (of the Karnataka Education Rules) places reasonable restriction for institutional discipline.”
He also clarified that there is no restriction on Muslim girl students wearing hijab on campus.
“It is only in the classroom and during class hours. It is uniformly applicable to all, irrespective of religion.”
Source: Barandbench
