Karnataka Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi on Tuesday told the High Court that the judicial decision onhijabwill have binding on "constitutional morality" and "individual dignity".
"When we impose, the element of choice of dress goes away. The woman will be obligated to wear that dress. It becomes compulsory," he said in his concluding remarks before a three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, hearing thehijabrow.
"Women cannot be subjugated to any form of dress code and she can't be made to feel less equal and children of a lesser god. Judicial declaration of every woman of a particular religion to wearhijab, would it not violate the dignity? If it is a compulsion of an attire, it is impermissible on this day.
"We propose no ban onhijab, it should be left to the choice of the woman. Right to privacy cannot be enshrined in public. Institutional discipline is paramount. Dignity of women must also be kept in mind in a plural society," Navadagi said.
The Karnataka government on Tuesday told the High Court that there is no restriction on wearing Hijab in India with reasonable restrictions subject to institutional discipline and dismissed the charge that denial to wear the headscarf was a violation of Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination of every sort.
Countering the petitioner Muslim girls from Udupi district, who challenged the restriction on Hijab inside the educational institutions, Karnataka Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi said the right to wear the headscarf falls under the category of 19(1)(A) and not Article 25 as has been argued by the petitioners.
"The right to wear Hijab falls under Article 19(1)(A) and not Article 25. If one wishes to wear Hijab, then there is no restriction 'subject to the institutional discipline'. The rights claimed under Article 19(1)(A) is related to Article 19(2) where the government places a reasonable restriction subjected to institutional restriction," Navadgi told the full bench of the Karnataka High Court.
The full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice J M Khazi and Justice Krishna M Dixit is hearing a batch of petitions seeking permission to wear Hijab inside the classroom. Navadgi further said the institutional restriction in the present case is only inside the educational institutions and not anywhere else.
Arguing further, he said the independent claim of 19(1)(A) cannot go together with Article 25. "The consequence of the demand to declare Hijab as an essential religious practice is huge because there is an element of compulsion or else you will be expelled from the community," Navadgi told the court.
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday said it wishes to dispose of the Hijab related case this week itself and sought the cooperation of all the parties involved.
AG argues,"A right cannot be exercised in isolation in public spaces. Institutional discipline is paramount."