New Delhi: Advocate Yusuf Mucchal, appearing for one of the petitioners in the Hijab ban case stated that when a state makes a law for social reform, it has to be concerned with individual rights and not a particular religion. "It has to be ascertained if the law is transgressing into religion, as we are concerned with individual's rights and not a particular religion," he argued. To this, the Supreme Court further questioned if Muslim girls have the right to wear a veil in schools under Article 25 of freedom of free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
The bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a bunch of pleas challenging the Karnataka High Court order that had upheld the state's decision to ban wearing hijabs in educational institutions. Monday was the fourth day of hearing the matter, which is likely to be concluded this week.
"A person can doubt all religions or believe in the universality of all religions. Constitutionally speaking, everyone is given that right," counsel Mucchal argued further. He submitted that not only the object of law, but its impact also has to be seen, and in this case, denying the girls to wear hijab is depriving them of their right under Article 25 and right to education.
"What is the crime that these little girls are committing? They are just putting a cloth on their head due to which all rights are being denied to them," said Advocate Mucchal. "My children may or may not wear hijab, but that doesn't mean I can stop anyone else," Mucchal added. Objecting to the High Court's observation that said that wearing hijabs is a recent practice, Mucchal argued that it has continued for centuries in religion and in schools.
Also read: Karnataka Hijab ban: Not very fair to compare with practices in Sikhism, says SC
Mucchal further highlighted that though some scholars might have certain interpretations of the Al Quran, it is not necessary that the laymen too would believe the same. "But a court cannot pick this issue up and ask about its essentiality. One view of a scholar can not be compared to that of other scholars and that's what the High Court has done. The courts have an incapacity to interpret the Al Quran," submitted Mucchal.
The court said that the Quranic verses were given by some of the petitioners only so that the HC could analyze them and pass informed orders. To this, Mucchal replied that HC should have set its hands off the matter if it does not have the expertise to deal with it, further suggesting that the matter be referred to a larger constitution bench so issues can be put up there.
Advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that many things are done as a practice, which is a matter of conscience, culture, personality, identity, dignity, and choice. "Ghunghat, for instance, in parts of UP, Rajasthan, North India is considered very essential for people who go out. When we go to Gurudwara being non-believers of Sikhism, we immediately cover our heads. In Saudi, people don't cover their heads in mosques but in India, we have to cover our heads. Namaz can not be said without cover in India," submitted Adv Khurshid.
The court shall continue hearing the matter on 14th September.
