<div style="text-align: justify; "><span style="font-size: 1rem;">Allowing girl students to wear hijab to educational institutions may also be viewed as an opportunity for children at an impressionable age to learn about diversity that India is all about, the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday as it continued hearing the Karnataka hijab ban cases.</span><br></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br></div><div style="text-align: justify;">According to a bench of justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia, while uniformity in dress code could be the prime argument of the Karnataka government , it cannot be ignored that allowing diversity in a classroom can make children culturally sensitive.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br></div><div style="text-align: justify;">“One can also say, this is an opportunity of being exposed to diversity. We have students from all cultures, religions...look at diversity of the country, be culturally sensitive towards them,” remarked the bench, as it heard lawyers on behalf of the state government and some teachers from Karnataka supporting the hijab ban.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br></div><div style="text-align: justify;">When senior advocate R Venkataramani, appearing for a teacher, argued that he would rather want a school free from all distractions of this kind, the court replied that it all depends on the perspective.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br></div><div style="text-align: justify;">“How will you prepare the students when they go out of the schools? When they face the world, they will face the great diversity of the country...diversity in culture, diversity in dress, diversity in cuisine. So, this can also be an opportunity to prepare them. It can be an opportunity to inculcate some values. That can also be a perspective,” it observed.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br></div><div style="text-align: justify;">During the proceedings, the court also asked the law officers representing the Karnataka government to explain on what basis hijab was sought to be pitched as a reasonable restriction to fundamental right to practice religion.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br></div><div style="text-align: justify;">“There are three grounds, public order, morality and health. On what ground are you restricting [hijab]? Under which head are you restricting it? Is it affecting public order, or someone’s health or morality?” it asked Karnataka advocate general Prabhuling K Navadgi.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Navadgi, on his part, retorted that the state is not targeting any particular religion, but was simply acting to ascertain discipline in educational institutions. “Right to wear a dress of one’s own choice will not automatically becomes a fundamental right. Every fundamental right can be restricted in a manner known to law...an assumed right that wearing hijab is a protected under the right to expression is to be viewed with caution and cannot be easily accepted,” Navadgi added.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br></div><div style="text-align: justify;">He contended that everything mentioned in the Quran could not be regarded as an essential religious practice, since such an assumption would prove impractical. “The dominant purpose of the government order is to enforce a dress code and discipline. It may have an incidental effect on some other subject,” Navadgi maintained.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Additional solicitor general KM Nataraj, also appearing for the Karnataka government, said that the state has neither prohibited nor promoted any religious activity, but only ensured equality among children in the schools.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br></div><div style="text-align: justify;">At this point, the bench commented that the net effect of the February order by the government was to prevent girl students from wearing hijab. The ASG replied: “The state has not said don’t wear hijab. We respect hijab, we respect shawl, everything...It is a simple case of discipline in an institution. No religion or person has been discriminated against. All have been treated equally.”</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Senior advocates Venkataramani and V Mohana represented two teachers from Karnataka, supporting the state’s mandate to prescribe uniform in educational institutions. Source: HT</div><div style="text-align: justify; "><span style="font-size: 1rem;"><br></span></div><div style="text-align: justify; "><span style="font-size: 1rem;">bnbd24/HT</span><br></div>