Karnataka Hijab Case: The debate in the Supreme Court of Karnataka Hijab Case has come to the final stage. On Wednesday, the 9th day of the hearing, the Karnataka government and the college teachers who refused hijab in the college were cross-examined. On Thursday, the petitioner side will get an opportunity to respond, after that the order will be kept safe.
On behalf of the state government, Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi presented the case before a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia. He said that it is necessary for everyone to observe public discipline. Giving example, the Advocate General said that it is a right to build a house on one’s own land, but the building rules of the area where the house is being built have to be followed. Similarly, if the uniform has been fixed in the school, then it should be followed.
The mention of triple talaq in the Supreme Court
The Advocate General also said that not everything can be presented as an essential part of religion. He said that some people had challenged the ban on the sacrifice of a cow on Bakrid as part of Islam, but the court found that it was not a necessary part. Similar arguments were also given in support of 3 divorces simultaneously, but the court did not consider it right.
Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj also appeared on behalf of the state government. He said that the matter is not about any religion, it is about discipline. If someone refuses to show face at the airport tomorrow, can it be allowed? Performing Havan is a part of Hindu religion, but can anyone come to the court and perform Havan?
Justice Hemant Gupta shared the story
During the hearing, the bench’s chairman Justice Hemant Gupta said, “I am sharing personal information. A judge of the Lahore High Court of Pakistan used to visit India often with his wife and two daughters. I used to meet him. I have never Didn’t even see the three women wearing the hijab.”
Arguments placed on behalf of college teachers
At the end of the day’s hearing, on behalf of the college teachers, R. Four senior lawyers including Venkataramani, V. Mohana made the arguments. It is the teacher who prevented girls from wearing hijab in college and has been made a defendant by the pro-hijab petitioners. It was told on behalf of these teachers that if there is already discrimination among the children, then it will be difficult to give good education. How can there be education without discipline? The teacher should be allowed to talk to the children without distinction. Trying to make a separate identity from the hijab is not right.
‘Separate education from religion’
A teacher also argued that they are talking about education, but some people are talking about religion. If the trouser is a uniform, can anyone say that I will not wear it. This is against my religion. He also said that more than 50% of the Nobel Laureates belong to a religion that has separated education from religion.