Karnataka HC dimisses two writ petitions challenging Hijab Ban for non-compliance with the Karnataka PIL rules

The special bench of Karnataka High Court today dismissed two writ petitions pertaining to the Hijab Controversy as the petitioners could not establish how they have been affected by it. The court dismissed the petitions for non-compliance of Rule 14 (b) of the Karnataka Public Interest Litigation Rules 2018 according to which the a litigant has to declare that the they have no personal interest in the litigation and are not guided by any motive and that the petitioner will not gain anything personally by filing the PIL.

A special Bench of Karnataka High Court headed by CJ Ritu Raj Awasthi and comprising of Justices Krishna Dixit and JM Khazi were hearing plea(s) by girl students challenging the alleged ban of wearing Hijab in government pre-university colleges in Udupi district

Petition in which Advocate Rahmathulla Kothwal appeared:

The first petition to be taken up for hearing today was that in which Advocate Rahmathulla Kothwal appeared. He started making submissions of India’s commitment to International guideline and how a ban on Hijab would be violative of these guidelines and a violation of Article 51 (C) of the constitution.

Kothwal said “ The customary law and Human rights expressly provide that arbitrary discrimination cant be done. It specifically says religious discrimination especially against women and children.” The court however intervened and asked him “Who are you? First show your bonafides. You will not be permitted to argue like this.” Kothwal informed the court that he represented a social activist who has assisted the court in many PILs in the past and this petition has been filed only to assist the court.

The court remarked “We don’t want any assistance.” The court then proceeded to ask Kothwal for the declaration under Rule 14 of the PIL rules. When Kothwal could not point it out to the court, the court remarked “You are all wasting the time of the court in such an important matter. Nothing is proper. This can be utilised for someone else's argument. This is not maintainable, we will dismiss this petition.”

Kothwal urged the court not to get into the procedural aspects of the matter as it is of great public importance. The court asked “Will you tell us what to do?” The bench then proceeded to dismiss the petition filed by Kothwal on the grounds that it is not complaint with the PIL rules. Kothwal at this point remarked “I have filed more than 20-30 writ petitions, none of them have been dismissed on maintainability like this.” Justice Krishna Dixit said “Maybe the rules have changed after the petitions you have filed.”

Petition in which AM Dar, Sr.Adv, appeared:

A.M.Dar, Sr.Adv from Delhi, submitted that he was appearing for five college students from Bangalore who sport Hijab and will likely be affected by the GO of the government. He submitted “This GO which is cryptic in nature is illegal. We need to deal within the parameters of the constitution and not get into international judgments.” The court immediately asked him to explain his locus standi in the petition.

He said “We are 5 girls studying in the colleges. We are likely to be affected. We put Hijab, we are not able to go to college because of this order.” The court then asked him to show from the petition as to the names of the college these five students are studying. The court then said “show us how your institution prevented you? Show us your cause of action?” When Dar requested the court to permit him to file an affidavit in this regard the court refused stating “You have not stated which student is studying in which school, what is your cause of action etc. We are not here to improve your case.”

The court then permitted him to withdraw his case and granted him the liberty to file a fresh petition with the requisite compliance. Since Dar could not establish how the petitioners were affected by the GO dated 5th February 2022, the matter was treated as a PIL. According to the PIL rules, the declaration under rule 14 was compulsory, since it was not provided by the petitioner, the court permitted withdrawal.

Case title: X Vs State of Karnataka