[Hijab Case] Karnataka High Court judgment hurtful, deeply offensive: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves argues before Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves on Thursday argued before the Supreme Court that the judgment of the Karnataka High Court effectively upholding the ban on wearing hijab (headscarves) in government schools and colleges was hurtful and deeply offensive to those who follow Islam [Fathima Bushra vs State of Karnataka]..The argument was made before a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia which is hearing a batch of pleas challenging an order of the Karnataka High Court which upheld a government order (GO) effectively empowering college development committees of government colleges in the State to ban the wearing of hijab by Muslim girl students in college campus..Senior Advocate Gonsalves was one of the several counsel opposing the High Court's judgment before the top court today. He brought to the court's attention parts of the judgment that refer to the Hijab acting as a hinderance to the process of emancipation of woman and developing a scientific temperament.He opined that these observations were hurtful and insensitive. "Parts of the judgment are deeply offensive to those who follow Islam, and it's contrary to at least three landmark judgments of this court", he said. .He urged the court to consider remanding the case to the High Court for it to be heard again by a different bench reasoning that it did not conform to the kind of constitutional independence that it ought to have."I will show ten short points on how the judgment is on the perception of the majority. Where the minority point of view has been seen wrongly. It's basically a majoritarian judgment."Senior Advocate Gonsalves also underscored that constitutional morality was the ability to see an issue through the eyes of the minority..The senior counsel also took objection to the judgment's reference to the concept of schools being a "qualified public space", one that was novel to Indian jurisprudence, according to him. "A Muslim lawyer coming to court in a Hijab can then legitimately be told to take off their Hijab because this is a 'qualified public space', and we have had complaints for this. This is very dangerous.".He went on to draw a comparison between the Kirpan and turban with the Hijab, noting that the former had already been protected by the Constitution and there was no reason for the Hijab to not be provided the same protection."If a turban is allowed in school, why not the Hijab? What's the difference? Apart from the fact that it got Constitutional protection 75 years ago. You'll never tell a Sikh boy to take off his turban", he argued. Senior Advocate Gonsalves also pointed out the Indian Constitution was a living document which changes with time and what was previously incomprehensible, was today to be accepted..He further urged the court to consider that diversity and religious expression in schools was the best way for children in India to learn about religions. "Some in a turban, some in a Hijab.. what better way for students to learn? Go for Diwali, Christmas, Eid."It was his submission that when a situation like the current one arises, students learn that there is something wrong with Islam..Read more about Day 1 here.Read more about Day 2 here.Read more about Day 3 here.Read more about Day 4 here.Read more about Day 5 here..[Read our live-coverage from today's hearing]