Hijab controversy Karnataka college announced holiday for indefinite days

Hijab controversy: Hijab issues rises in Vijay para medical college from days students are protesting outside college. Today Belagavi Vijaya Para Medical College announced holiday. This Karnataka college announced holiday for indefinite days.

Hijab controversy rises Belagavi Vijaya Para Medical College principal Dr. Prakash Patil told media that announced holiday for indefinite days from today. He also said I will discuss with District Commissioner and take further decision.

Yesterday in court wearing the hijab is not an essential religious practice of Islam and preventing its use did not violate Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom, Karnataka government told the high court on Friday. Appearing for the state government, advocate general Prabhuling K Navadgi said the practice of wearing hijab must pass the test of constitutional morality and individual dignity as expounded by the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala case.

“The Hijab controversy broadly falls into three categories. The government order of February 5, 2022 (relating to dress code) has been called into question. The second is the more substantial issue, about the practice of wearing hijab under Article 25. We have taken a stand that the practice does not fall under essential religious practice.

The third argument is that the right to wear a hijab can also be found in Article 19(1)(A). I submit it doesn’t do so,” Navadgi told a full bench headed by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and comprising Justice J M Khazi and Justice Krishna M Dixit. Navadgi countered the charge of the girls who had challenged the state government’s order restricting students from wearing hijab or saffron scarves, saying it violated Article 25 of the Constitution.

He said subject to public order, morality and health, all persons are entitled to freedom of conscience and none of the fundamental rights have this kind of clause. He further pointed out that during the pandemic, all temples, churches and mosques were closed.

When the AG claimed that the government order does not affect any petitioner and that the uniform issue has been left completely to the discretion of the College Development Committee (CDC), the bench questioned the necessity of referring to three HC judgments, Supreme Court, the hijab and public order in the February 5 directive.

The AG said the officers who drafted the order may have in their over-enthusiasm inserted some other word instead of saying “public decency”. “It is nothing but a case of recording those judgments. With better advice, that could have been avoided. The order is innocuous and does not interdict with the rights of petitioners. The arguments that it is irrational and communal in colour are without basis,” Navadgi said.

Regarding the question raised by petitioners against the CDC headed by MLAs, the AG said they are representative in character and include parents, SCs/STs, the principal, vice-principal and students. “I am pained at the way the government is being berated that we have discriminated against women and girls. With all humility and command, the state believes in treating everyone as equal,” he added.

Also Read: Apple iPhone 14 series to get 8GB RAM: Check expected features

Also Read: Kannada famous Actor Rajesh passed away

According to Navadgi, the government was apprehensive that incidents similar to the one at the college in Udupi, where girls wearing hijab were countered by students in saffron shawls, could spread to other places and, therefore, it issued the order even though a decision was taken on January 31 to refer the matter to a high-level committee.