BENGALURU: Social activist Dr Vinod G Kulkarni, who argued his PIL before the HC demanding Muslim girls be allowed to wear hijab on Fridays and during Ramzan, claimed the controversy relating to hijab has created mass hysteria throughout the nation, seriously affecting the mental health of Muslim girl students.
Citing the allowing of kirpan among Sikhs, he argued that hijab also should be allowed; it would end unrest in the country. He said hijab is not against public order, health or morality and the holy Quran says women should not expose their bodies. It cannot be ignored, he said. Dr Kulkarni argued that banning hijab is tantamount to banning the Quran. The bench said there is no ban on hijab as such.
However, the bench pointed out that prayers A and B in his PIL are contradictory. “Prayer A seeks a direction to students to wear the prescribed uniform. Prayer B says allow hijab provided they wear uniform. Where is it said in the Quran that women should not display their hair?” the bench asked.
Advocate-General Prabhuling K Navadgi will respond on behalf of the government on Friday. He said he needs time as many petitions were filed and lengthy arguments have ensued.
Counsel representing the College Development Committee of the Udupi college where the hijab row first erupted and local MLA Raghupathy Bhat, who heads the CDC, and another counsel representing a lecturer told the court they would address their arguments after the AG completed his response.
PIL dismissed During the 65-minute proceedings, the full bench dismissed as not maintainable a PIL filed by Mohammed Arif Jameel, a Bengaluru-based social activist, citing noncompliance of various instructions contained under Rule 14 of the High Court of Karnataka PIL Rules, 2018.
The petitioner claimed that the hijab ban violated fundamental rights guaranteed under various Articles of the Constitution and the charter of Universal Declaration of Human rights. MINORITY SCHOOLS’ PLEA Meanwhile, the Karnataka State Minorities Educational Institutions Managements Federation filed a separate petition challenging the February 5, 2022 government order relating to the dress code.
The federation sought a direction to the effect that the state government cannot interfere with the rights of minority educational institutions. The petitioner claims that the February 5 notification is contrary to decisions of the high court and the Supreme Court as far as aided and unaided minority educational institutions are concerned and violates Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution.
