If wearing other religious symbols is allowed, why not hijab, say lawyer. India News – Times of India

BENGALURU: Hijab ban is hostile discrimination against Muslim girls on the basis of their religion and is a harsh decision contrary to the intent of Article 15 of the Constitution, Senior Advocate Prof. Ravivarma Kumar Presented on Wednesday.
Appearing before a full bench of a student of Udupi College Karnataka High Court headed by Chief Justice Ritu Raj AwasthiKumar argued that when the wearing of other religious symbols such as bangles, bindis and crucifix pendants are being allowed, why only the hijab is being forbidden. Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

Kumar pointed out that in Indian society, many college going girls wear a dupatta or something to cover their heads, whether they are Hindu, Muslim, Christian or any other religion.
Govt forcing girls to choose between hijab and education: Lawyer
if people wearing turbans could be ArmyThen why can’t a girl attend classes wearing a hijab to follow her religion? It’s a tough decision,” a girl’s lawyer Prof. Ravivarma Kumar Presented.
He claimed that Muslim girls are the least educated and under-represented in classes and if they are locked in this way, it will cause destruction to their education. According to him, the role of education is to promote plurality and heterogeneity, not to maintain uniformity and uniformity, and a classroom should be a reflection of diversity in society. Further arguing that the College Development Committees headed by MLAs have no statutory source of power, he said they should not be allowed to expel students as well as exercise police powers. “A judicial note may be taken of the fact that the MLA, whoever he is, shall represent a party/ideology. Can we hand over the lives of the students to any party or ideology,” he asked. According to him, Legislator would not be under the government and hence there would be no accountability.
senior counsel Yusuf Muchhala Said that there is arbitrariness in the circular dated February 5, 2022. He also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Saira Bano case to support the claim of the petitioners. He compared the government’s decision to leave the petitioners with “Hobson’s choice”, saying they were being asked to choose education or religious conscience as a symbol of wearing the hijab.

,