Read Time: 06 minutes

The Advocate General of Karnataka Prabhuling Navadgi today submitted that a test of Essential Religious Practice (ERP) is whether discontinuation of a practice will bring about any change in the religion. He said,

“In France, there is a total prohibition of Hijab in public spaces. I dont think anybody can say there is no Islam in the country.”

The AG further submitted that while there is no prohibition on Hijab in India, there cannot be a judicial declaration on the same.

He said, “The central force of any interpretation is dignity. Dignity involves liberty. They want to make the women wear Hijab. It goes against the women’s liberty to choose not to wear it.”

He further argued that a right cannot be exercised in isolation in public spaces like schools and that institutional discipline is paramount.

The AG argued that a judicial declaration on the issue of Hijab will make it a religious sanction and the women concerned will in turn be obligated to wear it.

Continuing his arguments from yesterday Navadgi submitted that it is for the petitioners to demonstrate to the court beyond reasonable doubt that Hijab has to be compulsorily worn and that it is obligatory to the faith. He said,

“What is optional is not obligatory, what is not obligatory is not compulsory, what is not compulsory is not essential. It should be fundamental to every  religion.”

The AG further submitted that an argument that was advanced, to trace the right to wear Hijab independently of Article 19 (1) (A), he said It is mutually destructive, if it is accepted persons who do not wish to wear need not wear.

The AG submitted that Article 25 has an element of compulsion as far as dress is concerned. The consequences of a declaration of a court that Hijab is an Essential Religious Practice is that every member of the community is bound to abide.

The AG pointed out certain Suras from Quran for the court to refer and said, “This is the most difficult part of the argument as it deals with the holy text of Quran. I am placing an English translation. Holy Quran by Abdulah Yusuf Ali from Pakistan. This book has been referred to by Supreme Court with consent of All India Muslim Law Board.”

He further submitted that the petitioners relied on a website called quran.com which despite being authentic is not a scholarly source. In conclusion, the AG said,

"Arguments have been advanced that there has been religious discrimination. These are all bald allegations. There is nothing to substantiate. For petitioners like Mr. Mohan, we are not enforcing anything on them. The choice is left to institution.”

The AG further said, “Petitioners who represent who represent women organisation, I am saying what they think. Dignity of women should be kept in mind. “

The matter will now be heard tomorrow (22nd February) at 2.30 PM.

Case title: X Vs State of Karnataka