Petitioners against the hijab ban in some government educational institutions in Karnataka asked the Karnataka High Court on Monday to allow them to do the same, arguing that the Centre-run Kendriya Vidyalayas allow Muslim students to wear headscarves in colours that match their school uniform.

The plea was made in the form of a memo to the full bench, which is hearing a batch of petitions filed by Muslim girls from pre-university colleges in Udupi who have been barred from classes for wearing hijabs in alleged violation of uniforms prescribed by a college committee. 

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat told the full bench that "Muslim girls are permitted to wear scarves matching with the bottom wear with red hem on corners" by Kendriya Vidyalayas.
"In fact, even today, the Kendriya Vidyalayas permit by notification, despite the fact that they have uniforms." This has been the practise even at the national level. "Governments have permitted the wearing of headscarves," Kamat said.

"Muslim girls can wear headscarves, and Sikhs can wear headgear." "This is in accordance with Article 25 of the Constitution," he contended.

The case was rescheduled for a hearing on Tuesday. 

On Monday, the petitioners' counsel told the court that Muslim girls were wearing hijabs to school until a Karnataka government order on February 5 legitimised a ban.

One of the counsel's main arguments was that the state government, which is responsible for maintaining public order, had delegated the responsibility of deciding on the fundamental right to freedom of religion (subject to public order) to a College Development Council (CDC) through the February 5 order. 

"The government order declaring that wearing a headscarf is not protected under Article 25 is completely false... Delegation to a CDC to decide whether or not to allow students to wear headscarves is completely illegal. "As lordships are aware, the only restrictions that come to the aid of the state in restricting freedom of religion under Article 25 are public order," Kamat argued.

"Public order is a state responsibility; it is the executive's responsibility." The question will be whether a CDC made up of an MLA and subordinates will decide whether exercising this fundamental freedom under Article 25 is permissible or not. "An extra-statutory authority has been appointed as the guardian of our constitutional freedom, which is completely unconstitutional," he says.

According to the girls' counsel, the use of headscarves does not have to be an essential religious practise in order to be protected under the right to freedom of religion. "If a believer believes that a practise is part of his faith and that practise is innocuous in and of itself, it is not something, my lord, that violates public order in and of itself." It does not infringe on anyone's freedom on its own. The issue of essential religious practise will not be raised in this context. "It's just a facet of belief," the senior advocate contended.

"They've been wearing hijabs until the GO (February 5). It is a harmless practise. "The state should facilitate, not obstruct, religious freedom," he argued. Earlier, when the hearing began Monday, Chief Justice Awasthi called for responsible reporting by the media on the issue. “My earnest request to the media is to be more responsible. We all have to behave like more responsible citizens. We are not saying anything to the media, we are not on that issue. Our request is that the media must see its responsibility as the fourth pillar of democracy,” the chief justice said.