India Supreme Court Told Karnataka HC Misread Quran Translation to Say Hijab Not Essential
This is according to one of the petitioners in the hijab ban case submitted before the Supreme Court Thursday.
Advocate Nizam Pasha, the third counsel to address the court on behalf of the petitioners, faulted the Karnataka High Court for writing in its March 15 verdict that verses of the Quran had lost meaning with time. Such an observation “borders blasphemy”, Pasha told the court.
“For believing Muslims, the Quran is perfect for all the times to come. So, to say the verses have lost meaning with time is bordering on blasphemy,” Pasha argued.
Pasha further argued that even if one were to assume the HC’s view, that hijab was a cultural practice, as correct, it is as much a constitutionally-protected right as wearing a turban in Sikhism.
While the bench of justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia, which is hearing a batch of petitions against the Karnataka HC’s 15 March verdict, didn’t make a comment on the first two arguments noted above, it objected to Pasha drawing a parallel between a hijab and turban.
The hijab row broke out in January when the Government PU College in Udupi stopped six students wearing hijabs — a headscarf the petitioners say Muslim women are mandated to wear — from entering the college premises.
After the six students sat in protest outside their college, students from several other colleges in Udupi began coming to the college with saffron scarves.
As the row escalated, the Karnataka government issued a circular on February 5 banning religious symbols such as hijabs and saffron shawls in educational institutions. The order also said that uniforms must be worn in institutions where such a policy exists.
The students then approached the Karnataka High Court. In their petition, they say the February order empowered the college development committees (CDC) of government colleges to ban Muslim girls from wearing hijabs on campuses.
On March 15, the Karnataka High Court ruled that hijab was not an essential part of Islam and that the requirement of a uniform can be categorized as a “reasonable restriction” on the fundamental right to free speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)).
The court also held that the government’s power to issue an order was not invalid.
Even though the high court order was interim, the petitioners approached the apex court, which issued notice in the case on August 29.
Source: theprint.in
