Can\'t Take To An Illogical End, Right To Dress Is A Fundamental, Then Right To Undress?, Asks Sc On Hijab Row

It’s not logical to the conclusion that dressing is fundamental, so why not right to undress? is SC in hijab row

New Delhi, Sep 7 : The Supreme Court, hearing a collection of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court judgment nixing the wearing of hijab in schools on Wednesday, noted that the issue is that one particular community that insists on wearing the wearing of a head scarf, while other communities adhere to a dress code, and also that the petitioners’ lawyer argument on the right to dress shouldn’t be taken to “an absurd level”.
Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, representing a Muslim student, argued that the right to dress is recognized as fundamental rights in Article 19(1)(a) and stating that If a person attends school in a hijab and that person isn’t permitted, then the state is in violation of Article 19.

 Can't Take To An Illogical End, Right To Dress Is A Fundamental, Then Right To

Kamat made a statement before a bench consisting of Justices Hemant Gopta and Sudhanshu Dhulia , that Karnataka government’s GO is forcing students to choose between their identity , dignity and their right to education.In response, Justice Gupta orally remarked: “You cannot take it to an absurd conclusion.the right to dress is an essential human right.Likewise, the freedom to dress is also an essential right.?.”

Kamat replied: Kamat responded: “I am not here to argue cliches.Nobody is dressed in a casual manner in school.” .”, Justice Gupta said that nobody is denying the right to dress.Kamat then asked whether the wear of this attire (hijab) be prohibited on the basis of the Article 19?

Justice Gupta noted that the issue is that one particular community that is insisting on wearing a head scarf, whereas other communities adhere to the dress code.He said that the students of other communities aren’t saying that they’d like to wear this or this.

In questioning the Karnataka government’s GO, Kamat said there should be a reasonable accommodation for students who are trying to exercise their fundamental rights under Articles 19 21, 25, and 19 of the Constitution.

She also said that wearing a the hijab is not a cause for public order issues.Kamat stated that if a woman opts to cover her head with a veil, should the state prohibit it?

The bench responded: “No one is prohibiting her from wearing the hijab.but only in the school.” When Kamat referenced foreign rulings that came from the US and South Africa, Justice Gupta declared “come to India” and added that no other country is as diverse like India.

In the trial, it was claimed that the South African court had held that requiring a girl to remove her nose rings even for a short period of time would send the signal that she and her faith weren’t welcome.Justice Gupta said that the nose pin is not a symbol of religious significance and women wear earrings throughout the world, however it is not a religious practice.

The bench stated that South Africa does not have an ethnically diverse population as does India and scheduled the case for a second hearings on Thursday.

The court of supreme appeals was hearing a number of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court judgment, which declared the rights of colleges and universities to prohibit the wearing of hijab in the pre-university colleges in the state.


Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on WhatsAppFollow Us on Twitter