Final Arguments of Senior Counsel Sajan Poovayya Against Hijab Controversy in Karnataka

On Friday, February 25, 2022, Senior Counsel Sajan Poovayya concluded the arguments before the Karnataka High Court in the hijab controversy. This was the 7th part of the arguments presented by the government in favor of uniform policies in educational institutions.

Secular Principles and Constitutional Morality

Poovayya emphasized the importance of adhering to secular principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 28. He highlighted that government-owned educational institutions cannot promote religious outlooks, as this would contravene the secular nature of these public institutions.

The Karnataka Education Act is designed to maintain equality by prescribing uniforms in all educational institutions. Poovayya pointed out that among the 12 government colleges in Udupi, only 6 out of 100 Muslim students chose to wear a hijab due to pressure and insistence from certain community leaders. The practice was not widespread before December, when the uniform policy was introduced in the 2004 academic year.

Hijab and Individual Dignity

Poovayya argued that hijab does not meet the constitutional standards of morality and individual dignity as determined in the Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala case. He referred to the Sabarimala case, specifically Justice Chandrachud’s observations on equality of gender. If only 6 students are allowed to wear a hijab while the rest are not, he questioned the religious and social implications of such discrimination.

Educational Policies and Uniforms

He further stated that allowing hijab would amount to discrimination between practicing and non-practicing Muslims, as well as between Muslims and non-believers within the community. Poovayya referred to the Leyla Sahin vs. Turkey case, which restricted the wearing of hijab in Turkey’s educational institutions. This, he argued, supported the government’s case that no religious practices should be allowed inside educational institutions.

The introduction of uniforms by the educational institutions aimed to remove such discrimination and promote equality. According to Poovayya, the right to wear a hijab is not a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the Clothing Regulation Order dated February 5, empowering the Committee for Dress Regulation (CDC), is consistent with the secular educational policies.

Implications and Future Steps

The matter was posted for judgment, and the High Court will now deliberate on the arguments presented and issue a ruling. The case underscores the ongoing debates around the balance between religious freedom and secular policies in educational institutions.

Conclusion

Senior Counsel Sajan Poovayya’s arguments highlight the importance of secular principles in Indian educational institutions, as well as the challenges in balancing religious practices with broader social and constitutional principles.