The Indian Constitution is ‘positive secularism’, unlike Turkey which has ‘negative secularism’, where the State says that nobody can display their religious identity in public and the ban on hijab in public places was upheld by the constitutional courts there, it was argued before the High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday.
“The Constitution of Turkey is completely different... Our secularism is positive where the State plays an enabler role for the exercise of fundamental rights and the religious freedoms of all communities. We recognise all religions as true,” argued senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for the two students who have question the restriction on wearing hijabs in classrooms.
Citing a judgement of the Supreme Court before a three-judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, it was contended by Mr. Kamat that the Indian interpretation of secularism stems from the Vedic percept of Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava, and the SC has observed that ‘Indian secularism’ is susceptible to a positive meaning, that is developing an understanding and respecting towards different religions.
“Our Constitution is positive secularism and where we practise different religions and faiths, which has to be recognised,” Mr. Kamat contended.
Meanwhile, senior advocate Ravivarma Kumar, appearing for some of the petitioners, contended that at present the State Government has not prescribed any uniform for students as the matter has been referred to a high-level committee.
While contending that there is no order on banning hijabs at present, Mr. Kumar argued that college development committees are ‘non-existing bodies’ and are extra-legal authorities which were allowed to prescribe uniforms contrary to the scheme of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.
Applications rejected
Meanwhile, the Bench, also consisting of Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Jaibunnisa M. Khazi, rejected two applications, seeking permission to use the dupatta of school uniforms in the pattern of hijab in classrooms and to defer the hearing of the petitions till voting in several States are over.
Advocate-General Prabhuling K Navadgi, citing Civil Procedure Code and High Court’s Rules, pointed out that the applications were not in order as the petitioners, Ayesha Hajeera Almas and three others of Government PU College for Girls, Udupi, had not signed the affidavits, accompanying the applications. It was signed by their advocate, Mohammed Tahir. Following this, the Bench rejected the applications.
