‘Better refer it to larger bench’

Earlier, a judge had orally remarked that hijab could not be compared with Sikhism

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave on Thursday told a 2judge Bench of the Supreme Court that it should have referred to a larger bench the batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court ruling on Hijab in the state government schools instead of opting to hear itself.

Dave, representing some of the petitioners, was also irked by the limited time given to him to argue the case, He sought more time since the matter affects millions and he wants to show the Constituent Assembly debates and the warning of Sardar Patel.

A Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia agreed to hear him in the afternoon session while hearing others in the morning.

Advocate Shoeb Alam said the State cannot ask the person to surrender the right to privacy to have the education. He said on one hand, I have right to education, a secular education, and on the other hand, I have my right to privacy, culture, etc. under Article 21. He said the state has an affirmative obligation and duty to facilitate education, sharing the statistics of the Muslim girls in schools.

Senior advocate A M Dar wanted to elaborate on the Quran, but the Bench told him not to take it through all verses of Quran as other lawyers had argued that the courts are not equipped to interpret the Quran.

Other lawyers heard by the Court on the Hijab issue raised through a batch of 23 petitions included senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Dr Colin Gonsalves, Jayna Kothri, Abdul Majeed Dar, Meenakshi Arora and Shoeb Alam.

Gonsalves sought the same protection to Hijab that is given to the Sikh turbans and Kirpans since it is essential to the conscience of several Muslim girls.

In a previous hearing, Justice Hemant Gupta had orally remarked that hijab could not be compared with Sikhism as practices of Sikhism were “well engraved in the culture of the country.” Gonsalves said the Constitution is a living document. What was previously not acceptable can be accepted now. “The argument is, if turban allowed in a school, why not the Hijb? What is the difference?”

He argued as unfortunate Justice Gupta's earlier remarks whether the right to dress would also include right to undress.