Bengaluru: College Development Committee (CDC)Advocate, Sajan Poovayya contended before the three-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court that allowing religious attire like hijabs in the classrooms will violate secular principles of the education
Appearing for the CDC of government girls pre-university college of Udupi, Mr. Poovayya argued that in my college, there are 100 Muslim students, but only 5 are insisting to wear hijabs. If I allow them, then it means the remaining 95 students will be considered as irreligious and only those wearing hijab are religious. If it allows there is cohesion and public order remains, he stated before the bench. 

Three judge bench comprising Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna Dixit and Justice J.M. Khazi adjourns the hijab matter to Thursday. Meanwhile the bench has refused to modify its earlier order restraining to wear hijabs in the classrooms where the College Management Committee prescribed the uniforms. 

“If students insisted to wear hijabs, I cannot have provided for secular education, teach physics, biology and chemistry and then indicated that everyone can come in religious attire. That will erode into secularism”, he continued.
“Education, particularly education in the form of public instruction coming from the State is a purely secular activity. The right to be a Muslim is an absolute right. But I cannot turn up and say I have to wear a particular attire to school, to college, to court:”, Poovayya argued.

Karnataka Education Act says it should promote a 'secular outlook' in schools. He says uniforms should not have religious markers. In fact, it should be gender-neutral. We are reaching a stage on why boys should wear trousers and girls' skirts. Why should our sons and daughters have different uniforms?
“Freedom of conscience under Article 25 is the right to follow a religion and not right to manifest it by wearing a particular attire”, Mr. Poovayya contended.
“Muslim child is wearing hijab we now have a situation where Hindu child is saying he wants to wear the saffron scarf. Where is the end to it? In my college, I cannot permit a Hindu child to wear a religious symbol but disallow a Muslim child from wearing religious symbol”.   
“Should I control the manifestation of religious symbols or attire in secular activities? When a man or woman is going to pray they can wear religious attire. But when they are participating in a secular activity they cannot bring their religious manifestations”, CDC counsel contended according to Bar and Bench.
The basic Constitutional value for me as a school is to impart secular education and to ensure the dignity of a girl child is protected. I will not prescribe a protective attire to a girl child and not a boy child on a religious basis that girl needs it but boys don't”, Mr. Poovayya stated. 
When rule of law maintains community standards, the question is what is the need to have protective attire for females on the basis that females should be protected from gaze of males. 
When religion was formed and these embodiments came in our holy texts, society may have had certain standards. Maybe at that time, women had to wear a particular attire. Today community standards are not by religious texts, it is maintained by rule of law”, he argued before the three-judge bench. 
In Kerala, they have introduced gender-neutral uniforms. About 100 children in this school are Muslim students. Until December none of them were wearing hijab. Suddenly 5 children say they want to wear hijab, Mr.Poovayya stated. 
Under Art 25(2) There is nothing that prevents the State from making a law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political, or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice. Please see "secular activity" in the Article, CDC advocate stated.
In government girls pre-university college, the CDC is only presided by the MLA and the MLA may or may not belong to the political dispensation which is power during the relevant time. The MLA does not sit as a member of any party, Poovayya argued.
Senior Counsel S.S. Nagananda appearing for college management the petition says the threat was that the students will be marked absent. What is the threat there? If they don't come to school they have to be marked absent. It says threats were made to not reward internal marks, that never happened, these are bald allegations.
Allegations that they have mistreated them are not true. Sweeping generalized allegations that teachers have threatened the students. What threat was given, was it physical harm? he questioned. 

One more allegation is that we were scolding students. These are teachers with a number of years of standing. For them, children are like their own - like their kith and kin. Allegations like these, we have denied.
Referring to a threat to the college principal in Madikeri, Mr. Nagananda stated that there is also information that some teachers have been threatened by this organization. They were scared to even lodge a complaint, but I understand some complaint has been lodged eventually.
He further contended that some baseless and wild allegations have been made about ill-treating students. Allegations that petitioner students have been insisted to remove head-scarf by shaming them and invoking religious identity never happened.
Then some persons from the Campus Front of India which seems to be a radical type to school and started insisting that the girls wear hijab. When refused they started behaving rashly and started protesting. Then Muslim girl students refused to attend classes without hijab, Mr. Nagananda argued. 
This organization has been beating this drum beating of hijab agitation. It is not an educational organization or representative of students. It is some organization that comes and creates this commotion, he stated.