Karnataka AG questions followers' free will to practise religious rules in HC
text_fields
Bengaluru: Prabhuling Navadgi, the Advocate General for Karnataka government, brought out in the High Court the argument of compulsion if the Hijab wearing is seen as the essential religious practice as per the Article 25, whereby it is denying women the right to wear what they want.
The Court has been hearing a slew of petitions over the right to wear hijab in the educational institutions for over a week. The bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna Dixit and Justice J M Khazi heard the AG insisting that the hijab is not obligatory but an optional.
Navadgi further stated that the optional matters such as freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a) is not absolute and subjected to institutional discipline. In effect the religious obligation, which is compulsory, compels women to wear a particular dress, thereby a violation of Article 19, he argued.
However, the Advocate General's argument was seen a futile attempt to disregard the very right of citizens to practise their faith, which has been built upon of certain rules consisting of compulsions and options. If a person adheres to a particular faith, the person would be practising the set rules voluntarily. Then there would be no question of compulsion.
Like many rules, hijab may also be a compulsion within the religion, but a follower it is his free will to practise the set rules in the religion.
"There is no restriction on wearing hijab in India. But the freedom of expression as per the Article 19 (1) (2) is subjected to condition whereupon a state can bring reasonable restrictions in the interest of morality, public order and decency," he said.
"When it comes to individual dignity, this issue of dignity and liberty of human beings, of women, can't be lying in a vacuum. Women cannot be subjected to a compulsion of dress," the AG argued. "Individual dignity involves liberty, and liberty involves choice. The submissions by petitioners are based on compulsion. It goes against the fundamental ethos of the Constitution," he added.