Bengaluru: Karnataka The government on Monday informed the High Court that while praying for an order that hijab is essential to Islam, the petitioners who have challenged its order on uniforms in government PU colleges, are seeking to obtain a declaration that It will be binding on every Muslim woman.
Continuing its arguments on behalf of the state government before a full bench headed by the Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthisolicitor general Navadagi of Prabhulinga Claimed that the petitioners want to compel all, not just the petitioners, by such a decision.
with citing a reference constituent Assembly To elaborate on the debate and Supreme Court rulings on how the “principle of imperative” evolved, the state government stressed that the hijab is not a mandatory practice of Islam. Arguing that the petitioners have “zero material” to substantiate their claim that wearing hijab is a necessary religious practice, the state government requested the court to decide the issue one way or another.
He said, “The GO (government order) is innocuous and consciously innocuous. The controversy would not have arisen if the petitioners had requested the permission of the headscarf as a dress. They say, ‘Allow us because it is a religious one. symbol.” The question is whether it is part of a religious practice, and once the dispute is resolved, the student’s right to enter his institution will also be lost, he said.
Quoting Supreme Court Justices ChandrachudCommenting on the Sabarimala verdict, Navadgi said that modern jurisprudence says that it is a constitutional court which ultimately has to decide on such issues.
“Not every activity of Dharma can be considered a necessary practice. The final test is the binding nature of Dharma. If it is optional, it cannot be binding. It must be mandatory that if you disobey you will follow the Dharma.” Stop being a part.” The AG said, the claim of the petitioners that hijab is essential to religion should be tested on these principles.
Citing a Supreme Court judgment, Navadgi argued that food and dress cannot be a compulsory practice of religion. While considering the issue of essential religious practice, the AG referred to the Shirur Math case and three other decisions as well as debates in the Constituent Assembly which included KM Munshi and Dr BR Ambedkar. This was prompted by questions from Justice Krishna S Dixit And compared to JM Khaji conscience and religion. Justice Khazi asked whether “religious conscience” was involved in the essential religious-us practice. Justice Dixit reminded the AG about the debate on conscience in the Constituent Assembly.
The AG replied that it was a matter of faith or disbelief and the debate of the assembly was how to interpret freedom of conscience. According to him, essential religious practices cannot come under freedom of conscience.
However, Chief Justice Awasthi said that conscience and religion are different. Justice Dixit also pointed out that they are mutually exclusive and said that the secularism envisioned by the framers of the Constitution was not the same as the secularism of the US Constitution. “It is not that we have a wall between the church and the government,” Justice Dixit said.
Continuing its arguments on behalf of the state government before a full bench headed by the Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthisolicitor general Navadagi of Prabhulinga Claimed that the petitioners want to compel all, not just the petitioners, by such a decision.
with citing a reference constituent Assembly To elaborate on the debate and Supreme Court rulings on how the “principle of imperative” evolved, the state government stressed that the hijab is not a mandatory practice of Islam. Arguing that the petitioners have “zero material” to substantiate their claim that wearing hijab is a necessary religious practice, the state government requested the court to decide the issue one way or another.
He said, “The GO (government order) is innocuous and consciously innocuous. The controversy would not have arisen if the petitioners had requested the permission of the headscarf as a dress. They say, ‘Allow us because it is a religious one. symbol.” The question is whether it is part of a religious practice, and once the dispute is resolved, the student’s right to enter his institution will also be lost, he said.
Quoting Supreme Court Justices ChandrachudCommenting on the Sabarimala verdict, Navadgi said that modern jurisprudence says that it is a constitutional court which ultimately has to decide on such issues.
“Not every activity of Dharma can be considered a necessary practice. The final test is the binding nature of Dharma. If it is optional, it cannot be binding. It must be mandatory that if you disobey you will follow the Dharma.” Stop being a part.” The AG said, the claim of the petitioners that hijab is essential to religion should be tested on these principles.
Citing a Supreme Court judgment, Navadgi argued that food and dress cannot be a compulsory practice of religion. While considering the issue of essential religious practice, the AG referred to the Shirur Math case and three other decisions as well as debates in the Constituent Assembly which included KM Munshi and Dr BR Ambedkar. This was prompted by questions from Justice Krishna S Dixit And compared to JM Khaji conscience and religion. Justice Khazi asked whether “religious conscience” was involved in the essential religious-us practice. Justice Dixit reminded the AG about the debate on conscience in the Constituent Assembly.
The AG replied that it was a matter of faith or disbelief and the debate of the assembly was how to interpret freedom of conscience. According to him, essential religious practices cannot come under freedom of conscience.
However, Chief Justice Awasthi said that conscience and religion are different. Justice Dixit also pointed out that they are mutually exclusive and said that the secularism envisioned by the framers of the Constitution was not the same as the secularism of the US Constitution. “It is not that we have a wall between the church and the government,” Justice Dixit said.
,