New Delhi

Petitioners are being put to 'Hobsons' choice' in the hijab row in Karnataka, senior advocate Yusuf Muchhala told the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday.  

“They are being asked to choose between faith and education. This violates fundamental rights,” he said during the fourth day of hearing in the Karnataka High Court.

The three-judge bench will resume hearing the petitions challenging the hijab ban in educational institutions on Thursday.

Muchhala said that it was unfair that the petitioners were not heard when the decision to ban the hijab was taken.

"The purpose of the Education Act is to promote harmony and not to create dissent among students. On the ground of fairness, they should have been heard, the parents should have been heard. They should have asked the Parents Teachers Committee,” Muchhala said.

The petitioner’s counsel also tore into a government banning the hijab.

“The Government Order suffers from manifest arbitrariness. Even the parents and teachers were not consulted. What was the tearing hurry to change a practice going on in the school since the time of admission of the girls? Is it fair to say that to accommodate someone you don’t come to college? This is why I say that there was manifest arbitrariness. The fact that it’s being done because of the opposition of some other students shows it’s totally unfair and partisan.”

He said the decision has only created dissent among students.

“The purpose of the Education Act is to promote harmony and not to create dissent among students. Why govt should come out with such impugned legislation? Are we promoting common brotherhood with this?  The object they have launched is opposed to the fundamental duty of the citizens as well, as it goes against the promotion of communal harmony,” he said.

Eartliermin the day, another counsel for the petitioners, senior advocate Ravi Varma Kumar questioned why there was objection only to the hijab.

“No other religious symbol is considered in the impugned Government Order (GO). Why only hijab? Is it not because of their religion? Discrimination against Muslim students is purely on the basis of religion and hence it is hostile discrimination,” he said. “Why only this, why not the turban of a Sikh, the cross of the Christians?”

He also said that Muslim students were facing prejudice because of their religion.

“Here it is full of prejudice because of religion. No notice, straight away sent out of the classroom, by persons without authority under the Act or rules. The goal of education is to promote plurality, not to promote uniformity or homogeneity, but heterogeneity. A classroom should be a place for recognition and reflection of diversity.”

"No other religious symbol is considered... Why only hijab? Is it not because of their religion? Discrimination against Muslim girls is purely on the basis of religion and hence hostile discrimination," Kumar argued.

“This is only because only of her religion that petitioner is being sent out of the classroom. A bindi-wearing girl is not sent out, a bangle-wearing girl is not. A Christian wearing cross is not touched. Why only these girls? This is a violation of Art 15,” he said.

The Karnataka government on Wednesday reopened pre-university, degree, and diploma colleges under tight security arrangements amid the hijab row. Though the majority of students attended classes as per the guidelines of education institutions, many of them who refused to take off their hijab were sent back.