Turbans and Kirpans can's be compared with Hijab: SC

Drawing parallel between the turbans and Kirpans with the headscarf (Hijab) not proper, says the Supreme Court while hearing the appeal against the Karnataka High Court order which held Hijab as not an essential religious practice which in turn barred students wearing headscarf away from schools and colleges.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday observed that comparing Muslims' wearing headscarf (Hijab) with Sikhs' turban is improper as turban and kirpans are essentials for the latter, while hearing a student's challenging the Karnataka High Court order on holding Hijab as not an essential religious practice. The petition has been deferred to September 12.

The bench comprising of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, while noting that it was a faulty parallel, said there are requirements on turbans. "Five judge bench of this court has held that wearing a turban and kirpan is essential religious practice for Sikhs. That is why we are saying comparison with Sikh may not be proper," it said.

Advocate Nizam Pasha had submitted that as there are 5Ks for Sikhs there are the 5 pillars in Islam for Muslims. Pasha referred to the observations of the Karnataka High Court which dated Quran as of 1500 years old and irrelevant. "Quran is not relevant now anymore borders on blasphemy," Pasha quoted the Karnataka HC as saying.

Advocate Devadatt Kamat appearing for one of the students' petitioners argued before the court that the constitution provides three exceptions to Article 25 i.e public order, morality and health and wearing a Hijab doesn't violate any of those three. He argued that every practice need not be essential to religion but that doesn't mean that the state will keep banning it.

State said it banned everything after some students turned up with saffron shawls. Whereas wearing Hijab is an innocent display of faith that is protected by the Constitution but someone wearing shawls as a retaliatory response cannot be deemed as innocent display and will not enjoy the protection of the Constitition, Kamat said in his submission.

"I go on the street and wear headgear, somebody doesn't like and creates ruckus...now State comes and says that you can't wear it," Kamat said adding, "it is your (State) duty to create an atmosphere where we can exercise our rights... Public order apprehension is your (State) duty to maintain."