There was a heated debate in the Supreme Court on Tuesday regarding the Karnataka Hijab controversy. During the debate, SG Tushar Mehta tried to prove through several examples that hijab is not a necessary religious practice. Long arguments were also given on his behalf on uniform and discipline. The court’s questions and answers also kept coming, but Mehta stood by his arguments. Dress with religious identity not in school- SG Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that suppose someone killed my brother and I believe that he cannot live in peace until I take revenge. This means that murder may not even be a necessary part of an essential religious practice. For me it is not a matter of religion, it is a matter of equal conduct among all students. When I am in secular education, I can’t have a dress showing my religious identity. Mehta said that both Vedashala and Pathshala are different. One can wear saffron patka in Vedashala, round cap in Madrasa. But following the uniform in a secular school is a discipline. If we choose secular institutes for the education of children, then we have to follow the rules. The SG referred to the decision of a US court regarding a ban on beard or hair growth in police forces. A lawyer wearing a hat comes to the court saying that it is part of Operation Thunderstorm, the judge objected. The ban held by the Court in such a regulated forum shall be upheld if it is justified. Discipline does not come by looking at any institution- Mehta SG Tushar Mehta said that similarly when some lawyers wearing vests came to argue in the hearing at the time of virtual hearing in the Kovid crisis, the court fixed them according to the uniform and dignity of the institution. Was told to follow the dress code. The court had given him some relaxation but had spoken of discipline. Discipline does not come by looking at any institution. Rather, it is eternally universal. Now after hearing these arguments, Justice Hemant Gupta said that then in winter the students wear mufflers, where are they in uniform? To this the SG said that what is the purpose of the dress? One should not dress in such a way that I feel inferior. Dress stands for uniformity and equality. When you want to exceed that limit your test is also on the higher limit. The petitioners were unable to prove that the hijab is a compulsory religious practice. In many Islamic countries, women are fighting against the hijab. For example, in Iran it remains a socio-political issue. Therefore the hijab is not a compulsory religious practice. The mere mention of the hijab in the Quran does not make it a mandatory religious tradition of Islam. Part of the muffler uniform or not? On this, Justice Dhulia again asked the same question that he is not saying that he is not wearing a uniform. For example, a student can wear a muffler in winter. They are saying that we will wear the dress. They are not saying that we will not wear it. Suppose a child wears a muffler, in the same way a girl student can also wear a uniform colored hijab. But Tushar Mehta refuted this argument. He clearly said that this muffler does not identify religion but hijab does. Tomorrow the hearing will be held again Tushar Mehta also emphasized that it is not that religious tradition or practice should continue for fifty years or twenty-five years. Religious practice is that which has been going on since the beginning of religion. It is an integral part. Giving an example, it was said that Tandava dance is an ancient concept of Sanatan Dharma, but it is not correct to say that it is our religious tradition to walk while walking on the road. The hearing in the hijab case is going to be held again at 10.45 am on Wednesday.
Hijab will not become a necessary religious practice due to mention in Quran… SG Tushar Mehta argued in Supreme Court Com Auto News