Read Time: 05 minutes

The Advocate General for State of Karnataka today made the Government's stand(s) on various aspects, crystal clear on the ongoing hijab Row controversy before Karnataka High Court today.

Before a special bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna Dixit & Justice JM Khazi, Navadgi told Court that the Hijab does not fall under the ambit of an "essential religious practice". Due to paucity of time, he said that he seeks to make submission in this regard on Monday. 

The Advocate General said that nonetheless, the question of whether the Hijab is an essential religious practice will have to be determined on the twin test laid down in the Sabarimala Judgment.

"Practice of Hijab to be accepted must pass test of constitutional morality & individual dignity as expounded in Sabarimala Judgment (Supreme Court)"
- AG Prabhuling Navadgi

On the question of what the Constitution expounds so far as restrictions to Article 25 is concerned, the Advocate General sought to rebut the petitioner(s) and his skeletal argument began with an overview of the "Freedom of Conscience" which is well expounded in the Constitution.

"India's constitution allows a person to believe there is no God, to believe and to be a 'non-believer'. There is also the aspect of manifestation of faith as against professing of faith, which he elaborated by stating that the professing of faith is different from manifesting it. 

"Wearing of the Rudraksha is not necessarily professing faith but a manifestation of it," said the AG.

Further to this, he explained the alleged nexus which was being allegedly projected by the petitioner(s) so far as the Government's interference in uniform is concerned.

"I say this before a constitutional court, the state seeks to treat everyone absolutely equally. Whatever the CDC fixes, please follow that for PU Government colleges! We (Govt) are not interfering!”
- AG Prabhuling Navadgi

Furthermore, he informed Court that the resolution which was passed by the CDC had little to do with government interference. The bench however asked him if the mandate could be traced to the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The Advocate General said it can most certainly be traced to section 133 of the Act which are the Government's revisionary powers accorded to it by law.

On the question of the petitioner(s) grievance that an MLA from the ruling dispensation may have been responsible for the decision mandating uniforms on PU Colleges, the Advocate General pointed out that "MLA being nominee has no relevance in mandates of such circular as other members part of committee too, including parents".