Hijab row: Karnataka HC asks for details as college counsel blames ‘radical’ outfit

The court is hearing a batch of petitions filed by students from government PU colleges in Udupi over restrictions on the wearing hijab in classrooms.

“On December 30, 2021 members of the Campus Front of India (CFI), which seems to be a radical organisation, approached the college authorities and insisted on wearing hijab in college and when refused the students and persons started to behave rashly,” Naganand told the court.

“The Muslim girls then started refusing to attend classes without hijab. After that, the CFI has been coordinating protests and processions. It is pertinent to note that parental rights are entrusted to school teachers when the children are entrusted to a school,” the advocate said.

Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, who is heading the three-judge bench, asked for the details of the CFI, a student organisation affiliated to Popular Front of India (PFI) that is involved in organising Muslim students to fight for rights in the coastal districts of Karnataka.

“What is this organisation? Do you have any intelligence inputs on these organisations? All of a sudden how have these organisations come up?”the Chief Justice asked state Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi. The AG replied he would place a report in a sealed cover on CFI.

“It is some kind of voluntary organisation that is doing the drum beating for hijab. It is a rank radical organisation,” advocate Naganand told the court. He also said “some teachers have been threatened by the organisation and a police complaint has been lodged in the past couple of days”.

An advocate, Mohammed Tahir, intervened to state the CFI was an organisation like the ABVP and that the court must also look at their role in fomenting hijab protests.

Meanwhile, senior advocate Sajjan Poovaya, who argued on behalf of the College Development Committee at the Government PU College for Girls in Udupi, said even if the use of hijab is an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 (1) of Constitution it can be regulated under provisions of Article 25 (2) to maintain secular interests.

“Maintaining a secular order is the paramount obligation of the state or for that matter an educational institution,” Poovaya argued. “Uunder Article 25 (2) I am entitled as a school to ensure that no religious symbols enter the school compound. I am obligated under the Constitution.”