Contending that allowing any religion to compel a woman to wear a particular type of dress would violate liberty and individual dignity of the woman, State Advocate-General on Tuesday argued before the High Court of Karnataka that Quran does not mandate women to wear headscarf or hijab.
However, A-G Prabhuling K. Navadgi clarified that imposing dress code in educational institution comes under the power of the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) to bring in institutional discipline.
He also pointed out that there is no restriction on wearing any dress in public places in India, and the restrictions are limited to institutional discipline.
The A-G submitted copies of ‘The Holy Quran: Text Translation and Commentary’ by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and ‘The Meaning of the Glorious Quran, Text and Explanatory Translation’ by Marmaduke Pickthall, which were relied on by the apex court in various cases, before a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Jaibunnisa M. Khazi.
Referring to the verses relied upon by the petitioners from Quran.com, the A-G said that there is “no mention” of hijab in those verses while pointing out that there are many countries like France, which have banned wearing of dresses like hijab even in public places. “Nobody can say that there is no Islam in those countries because wearing of hijab is banned,” Mr. Navadgi argued.
Even if it is assumed that wearing of hijab is an “essential part of religion” as argued on behalf of the petitioners, the A-G contended that such a religious compulsion would violate the law laid down by the apex court on constitutional morality and individual dignity of women in Sabarimala temple case.
Every woman of every faith has the choice of what to wear and what not, and there cannot be a religious sanction on compulsion to wear a particular type of dress by way of judicial declaration, the A-G argued while pointing that this choice available to an individual is, of course, subject to institutional discipline.
In support of his contention, Mr. Navadgi cited apex court observations, “...To allow practices derogatory to the dignity of a woman in matters of faith and worship would permit a conscious breach of the fundamental duties of every citizen...” in Sabaramila case judgment.
Box
‘GO not applicable to private minority schools’
The State Government on Tuesday told the High Court that its February 5 Government Order laying down guidelines for schools and pre-university colleges on dress code is “not applicable to private unaided minority educational institutions.”
Recording this submission of the Advocate-General, a three-judge Bench, which is hearing petitions related to hijab controversy, has disposed of a petition filed by the Karnataka State Minorities Educational Institutions Managements’ Federation. The petitioner had claimed that the GO would not apply to the private minority educational institution in the light of autonomy available to them to administer the institutions as interpreted by the apex court.
