[Hijab Case] Supreme Court reserves verdict after 10 days of hearing

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict in a batch of appeals challenging a Karnataka High Court verdict that upheld a government order (GO) of State of Karnataka effectively empowering government colleges in the State to ban the wearing of hijab by Muslim girl students in college campus [Fathima Bushra vs State of Karnataka]..A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia finished hearing all the parties today, including twenty-one counsel for the appellants and five for the respondents, over the course of ten days. "We have heard you all. Now our homework starts. Thank you very much," the bench said. .The challenge before the Supreme Court was against the Karnataka High Court decision from March 15 upholding the Karnataka government order.The petitioners - Muslim girl students from various colleges in Karnataka - had approached the High Court after they were denied permission to attend classes on account of wearing hijab..A three-judge Bench of then Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S Dixit and JM Khazi of the High Court had held that:- Hijab is not a part of essential religious practices of Islam;- Requirement of uniform is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a);- The government has the power to pass the GO; no case is made out for its invalidation..The appellants before the Supreme Court contended that this was a case of State failing to provide reasonable accommodation to a student exercise her right under Articles 19 and 21.They also underscored that only if an attire disrupts public order, it can be restricted and it was the responsibility of the State to ensure an atmosphere was created where one could exercise their fundamental rights. Regarding the issue of Essential Religious Practice Test (ERP) and whether hijab is essential to Islam, the appellants contended that the only issue that needed to be considered was whether the restriction was deemed to be a valid Constitutional restriction.On the other hand, some of the appellants also took a stand that everything in the Quran was mandatory and nothing was directory. Therefore, wearing the hijab was essential to Islam. The appellants also claimed that the government order discriminated against on the grounds of both religion and sex..The State government, on the other hand, maintained that the order was "religion-neutral" and did not target any particular community. The court was informed that the female Muslim students challenging the hijab ban never wore hijab to educational institutions until 2021, but suddenly started the practice on advice by someone else when a movement designed to create an agitation was started on social media by the Popular Front of India.It was also the government's submission that an ERP was only one that could be traced back to the origin of a religion itself or was so compelling that one could not fathom the religion without it..The appellants in their rebuttal, however, emphasised that when the government order specifically targeted the headscarf it could not been seen as religion-neutral. "Suppose you were to come out with a circular saying you cannot wear a turban, can you say no this does not target Sikhs," Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi asked. Addressing the suggestion that the students wearing hijab were motivated by social media agitations, the appellants said that such an argument could not be introduced orally when it was not part of any pleadings. "The circular has no reference to Popular Front of India.. I regret to say the Solicitor raised that issue, but it's not relevant and because he raised it entire media picked it up," Senior counsel Dushyant Dave pointed out. Finally, it was argued that the court ought to examine competing fundamental rights in the case at hand to arrive at a conclusion. "The issue here will be I use my behavioural privacy right to wear something if that wearing creates a violation of a competing right, then it would have to balanced. But if it does not, then this exercise will have to be permitted.".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 more about Day 6 here.Read more about Day 7 here.Read more about Day 8 here.Read more about Day 9 here..[Read our live-coverage from today's hearing]