NEW DELHI: A petitioner on Wednesday argued before the Supreme Court that the Karnataka government’s order on prescribing uniforms in educational institutes has misunderstood the concept of fraternity.
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for one of the petitioners, apprised the court that in the Preamble, Equality and Liberty are qualified while Fraternity is absolute. He said that Fraternity is understood as a brotherhood, that is to recognise diversity. The submission came when Ahmadi was explaining the purpose of introducing fraternity as a Constitutional value.
Justice Hemant Gupta said that as per Hindu translation, people understand secularism as ‘Dharmnirpeksh’, but the text says ‘Panthnirpeksh’. The court noted that the Constitution was secular even in the absence of the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble. “We did not become secular just by adding the word. Even before that, we were secular,” Justice Hemant Gupta said.
A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing various pleas against Karnataka HC’s judgment upholding the ban of hijab in educational institutes
Advocate Ahmadi said that the impugned government order has misunderstood the concept of fraternity and confuses the same anti-thesis of diversity as he quoted some portions of GO.
Justice Dhulia remarked that when the authorities concerned wrote the GO, they may not have been aware that it would be put to this scrutiny. The court observed that the authorities concerned may have thought that peace should be maintained.
Ahmadi said that Karnataka Education Act promotes unity in diversity and the circular is against the objective of the Act. He asked why should someone get provoked if someone wears hijab and goes to school. The senior lawyer also said that if it provokes, then that needs to be addressed.
Meanwhile, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for one of the petitioners, said the right to dress is part of free speech, and it is only subject to public order. Today, there is a lot of discontent in the majority community to knock down whatever comes as Islam, he said.
Senior Advocate Dhavan referred to Kerala HC’s opinion on essential practice and said the Kerala HC’s opinion differs from Karnataka HC. He said that in Kenya, an attempt was made to abolish the hijab but the High Court of Kenya took the view that such a move was unconstitutional.
The senior advocate said this was probably to target Muslims and Muslim women mainly, and it violates Articles 14 and 15 and this kind of targeting is not permissible in Constitution. (ANI)