Read Time: 10 minutes

Sr. Adv. Sajan Poovayya, appearing for the College Development Council (CDC) of the Government Girls PU College in Udupi, today submitted before Karnataka High Court, that the issue pertaining to the college not permitting hijab is suddenly being raised and that nobody complained about it earlier. He further submitted that the CDC has met every year and all stakeholders have been consulted and passed the decision on the uniform.

While Justice Krishna Dixit of Karnataka High Court directed the Registry to place the matter before Chief Justice Rituraj Awasthi to decide on whether this issue requires consideration by a larger bench, there was deliberation by counsels from both the sides and he remarked at one point saying, “So much argument has certainly not been made before, merely on the question of reference.”

Sr. Adv. Sanjay Hegde, appearing for one of the students appeared on the screen and started introducing himself to the Court, at which point Justice Dixit intervened and said, “You don’t have to introduce yourself, I know so much about you that I can be your biographer.”

Hegde then submitted that the children he represents have a genuine problem and that the Court may pass an interim order permitting the children to go to school wearing Hijab.

Hegde further told the Court that he will argue only on the administrative law and not made any submissions which are divisive in nature. He said, “Let us not get into questions that will possibly have a divisive character, all that I say is let the children get back to school.”

Advocate General of Karnataka Prabhuling Navadgi submitted that, “Unfortunately this matter has taken a turn it should not have taken. Therefore it will require an order of this Court. The question of law has to be answered one way or the other. If it can be confined to this, I will be grateful.”

Adv. Kamaleeswaram Raj, for the intervenor submitted that most of the issues arise from Article 25 of the Constitution and that there is some exigency in this regard and it needs to be addressed.

Sr. Adv. Devdutt Kamat, who argued extensively yesterday submitted that, “As far as my clients are concerned, we have absolute faith in Your Lordships. But having regard to what has fallen from the Court, that there should be a wide view, I cannot object to it.”

A counsel appearing in person in the court hall submitted that the lawyers maybe fighting in the courts on an important constitutional matter, however, the the children are not going to school on account of this controversy.

Kaleeswaram Raj at this point submitted that he supports the petitioners on the question of interim order as passing an order of this sort is within the Court’s judicial discretion and even if the matter reaches a larger bench, the judicial order will stand.

He said “Even if the children are kept outside their classrooms for half an hour for this reason, it sends a wrong message.”

The AG at this point submitted that, “They call into question the order of the State. A plain reading of the GO says that College Development Committee has the discretion to take a decision in this regard. In so far as the college in Udupi is concerned the CDC has said they should continue wearing uniform.”

The AG further submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish that wearing Hijab is an essential religious practice and that they have not quoted from religious texts excepting for two verses from Holy Quran.

Hegde at this point said, “The AG says, we have not prescribed or proscribed. Ultimately what is relevant for us is whether the children go to the school or not and whether the Principal allows us to sit in class. There is nothing in the Karnataka Education Act that deals with uniform.” Kamat added to this saying the State’s stand today has made it worse as they have left it to the CDC.

A counsel who made emotional submissions on the children being kept out by the school was told by the Court that he cannot appear and make submissions without holding a vakalatnama for any litigant. 

“You will have a good career, but follow what the Advocates Act says,” Justice Dixit remarked.

At the end of an elaborate hearing, Justice Dixit noted, “The matter was argued by both sides for sometime from which the Judge has benefitted,” in the order referring the case to the Chief Justice to decide whether it needs the consideration of a larger bench.

Cause Title: Resham vs State of Karnataka