Hijab is ideal, but not essential; Karnataka appeals Supreme Court ruling on hijab ban

On Tuesday, as the hearing on the contentious subject of the hijab prohibition in India’s southern state of Karnataka entered its eighth day, a division bench of the Supreme Court was told that while the hijab was listed as ideal in the Islamic holy text, Quran, it was not required, or else ‘Muslim women in countries like Iran would not be fighting against it’.

Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia said it has to refer to the one verse of the Quran which makes it a ‘farz’ (duty or something mandatory) to wear a hijab. Solicitor General cited ongoing tensions in Iran and said that if it was so compelling in the Quran, why would women in Iran fight against it?

Mehta identified the nation as Iran when Justice Dhulia questioned him about it, saying that the Quran’s mere mention of the nation indicates that it is allowed or ideal but not necessary. Mehta argued that the court must refrain from analysing any religious texts. ‘ But this is not a religious issue for me. That’s how a secular nation operates. You don’t have to tie something to something to convey your opinions about crossroads ‘, he informed the court. Islam requires that women cover their heads with a fabric, a practise known as the hijab.

The Supreme Court has been hearing a batch of 23 petitions challenging hijab ban in educational institutions in Karnataka. Petitioners in favour of the practice asserted that ‘hijab is a symbol of dignity just like a Hindu woman covers her head with her saree’. The petition does not prohibit only hijab but saffron shawls as well, Mehta told the court.

Hijab cannot be prohibited and it should be respected just like a Hindu woman covering her head with a saree is, the Supreme Court has ruled. The SG also argued that it was necessary to bring uniforms in colleges to avoid disparity in what students wear. He said that the issue of wearing hijab arose only after a movement was started on social media.

Justice Dhulia said that such a case will be hit directly by Articles 19 and 25 of the Indian Constitution. Justice Gupta gave an example of ‘dancing nude in public’ in the name of religion. The Supreme Court of India will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday.