Bengaluru, March 15 (UNI) While dismissing pro-hijab petitions, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday noted that the way the hijab imbroglio was blown out of proportion gave scope for the argument that some unseen hands are at work to engineer social unrest and disharmony.
“We are also impressed that even Muslims participate in the festivals that are celebrated in the ‘ashta mutt sampradāya’ (Udupi being the place where eight Mutts are situated). We are dismayed as to how all of a sudden, that too in the middle of the academic term, the issue of hijab is generated and blown out of proportion by the powers that be,” the Court noted.
“The way hijab imbroglio unfolded gives scope for the argument that some unseen hands are at work to engineer social unrest and disharmony,” it observed.
The court noted that they have perused and returned copies of the police papers that were furnished to them in a sealed cover and expect a speedy and effective investigation into the matter.
Earlier, the court upheld the Karnataka government order of February 5 effectively empowering colleges to ban the wearing of hijab (headscarves) by Muslim girl students in educational institutions.
On the petitioners claiming that wearing of hijab is part of essential religious practice in Islamic faith protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S Dixit and J M Khazi held that the hijab is not an ‘essential religious practice’ of Islam. And it was also not covered under the freedom of conscience.
“The Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women and is only directory, because of the absence of prescription of penalty or penance for not wearing hijab.
The court further observed that what is made recommendatory by the Holy Quran cannot be metamorphosed into mandatory dicta by Hadith which is treated as supplementary to the scripture.
“A contra argument offends the very logic of Islamic jurisprudence and normative hierarchy of sources. This view gains support from paragraph 42 of Shayara Bano which in turn refers to Fyzee’s work. Therefore, this contention too fails,” it added.
The court also felt it appropriate to quote what the Prophet had appreciably said at Sura (ii) Verse 256 in Holy Quran: “Let there be no compulsion in religion …” Ali, in his footnote 300 to this verse, appreciably argues that compulsion is incompatible with religion because religion depends upon faith and will, and these would be meaningless if induced by force.
The court also referred to Ali’s footnote 3760 to Verse 53 that mentions that for Muslim women no screen or hijab is mentioned but only a veil to cover the bosom, and modesty in dress and the screen was a special feature of honor for the Prophet’s household, introduced about five or six years before his death…” It noted that wearing hijab was recommended as a measure of social security for women and to facilitate their safe access to the public domain.
“At the most the practice of wearing this apparel may have something to do with culture but certainly not with religion.”
Petitioners have miserably failed to meet the threshold requirement of pleadings and proof as to wearing hijab is an inviolable religious practice in Islam and much less a part of ‘essential religious practice’,” the judges said.
