Read Time: 08 minutes

S.S. Naganand, Sr. Adv, appearing for the teachers, today told the court that Campus Front of India (affiliated to the radical extremist ideologue organisation Popular Front of India) pressurised the college into permitting Hijab. He said “Campus Front of India is a voluntary organisation which is spearheading this drum beating and beating of chest for Hijab & they are not even an educational institution.”

The court on hearing this, asked the Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi if there are any intelligence reports on CFI instigating these protests, the AG informed the court that he will file a report in a sealed cover.

Naganand took the court through certain documents to show that the same petitioners who were before the court seeking directions of the court to wear Hijab had posed for pictures for obtaining Aadhar card without Hijab.
He further took the court through the resolutions of the school from 2004 to bring to the notice of the court that the college made uniforms compulsory in 2004, there have been no protest till now however these protests are now taking place with the instigation of CFI.

He said “There is also information that some teachers are being threatened by this organisation. They were scared to lodge a complaint. A complaint has been lodged recently.”
Naganand further argued that the allegations made are general in nature and nothing specific has been cited in the petition he said “They are in the petition making generalised allegations. They say that the threat was to mark them absent. If they don’t attend they will mark them absent, what is the threat here? They say not rewarding internal marks, which exam?”

It was argued that as per the allegations of the students, they were discriminated against in September, however they did not file a representation or a complaint till December. He submitted that they waited for three months and even in the representation given to the authorities in December nothing has been mentioned about the incidents that happened in September. He further submitted that “The affidavit is signed by the Mother of petitioner No.1, the petitioner has become a major, her affidavit was signed by her mother.”

On freedom of conscience he submitted that “The constitution makers wanted a person to have his own though process, they did not want to curtail it. The juxtaposition between religion, religious practices, culture, cultural practices are all laid down by courts.” He further submitted that when an attempt is made to keep order, it is public order mentioned in Article 25(2) and it is not necessary that the order comes from disorder. Naganand further argued that “ Authority says, when you send the child to school the teachers have the right to discipline the child. The teachers can exercise quasi parental authority.”

On the validity of College Development Council (CDC) he submitted that it was acting on behalf of the college and is not a stranger. He submitted that an MLA being a member of the CDC does not make a difference as he is duty bound to justify the position he occupies. He said “If in the wisdom of the CDC, they independently take a decision that they should be uniforms they feel it is good for students because it will rid them of overarching religious beliefs.”

In conclusion he remarked “We must tell our children dont make a distinction of any kind. The divine spark is there in everyone. Children come to school they are told not to wear external symbols of religion. Now Right wing boys want to wear a Saffron scarf. Are we going to polarise?”

The matter has been adjourned to 24th February 2022 (Thursday) for further hearing.

Case title: X Vs State of Karnataka