'Even muffler is not prescribed in uniform, will you prevent?': Justice Dhulia asks SG Tushar Mehta during Hijab hearing in SC

Hijab hearing in SC: Justice Gupta questioned SG Mehta about whether the level of discipline in Armed forces and Sainik schools is different than discipline in private schools.
supreme-court-pti-1626076730

Supreme Court of India

Photo : PTI
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ended its hearing in the Karnataka Hijab case on Tuesday. The top court will hear the arguments again on September 21. The petitions by students have challenged the Karnataka High Court's order upholding the prohibition on wearing of Hijab by Muslim girl students in the state.
While hearing the arguments on Tuesday, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: "If a child wears a muffler during winters, even the muffler is not prescribed in the uniform. Will you prevent?"
To which SG Tushar Mehta replied, "The rule says cannot have a religious identity. Uniform is uniform. Wear saffron in a Ved Pathshala, can wear Hijab in the Madarsa. But in a secular school, you have to wear the uniform."
Justice Hemant Gupta asked the Solicitor General, "If a leather belt is part of the uniform and someone says we can't wear leather, will you allow?"
To which SG Tushar Mehta replied, "If the uniform says short pants you cannot wear it so short that it's indecent. Everyone understands uniforms and discipline." The Solicitor General also mention that in some countries, women are not allowed to drive. SG Mehta said, "I am not criticizing any religion. In Iran, there is a lady pilot, but from the house, her husband has to drive her."
The Solicitor General then cited orders where courts in other countries have said that mandatory uniforms are legal.
Justice Gupta questioned SG Mehta about whether the level of discipline in Armed forces and Sainik schools is different than discipline in private schools.
SG Mehta said, "Discipline cannot be of different degrees. Discipline means discipline. We are not talking about anything that causes any harm to them. "
Earlier, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, "It must be proved beyond doubt that the wearing of the Hijab was a threat to public order, public health or morality."
SG Tushar Mehta said, "Suppose Anand Margis are taking out a procession, doing 'tandav nritya', drinking wine on road, they can't call it an essential religions practice."
Here are the details of the arguments in the Supreme Court
Justice Dhulia: But does this pertinent case falls in that category?
SG Mehta: If I come on the street and say.. take an extreme example.. it is part of my religion to dance nude in public.
Somebody will say it's against public order and morality. I'll be prevented by local authorities. Who will decide?
Justice Gupta: I don't think this extreme example is appropriate.
SG Mehta: Okay, if someone says I want to take Rath Yatra during Covid. I will say it is an essential practice.
Justice Gupta: I was part of the bench which permitted Rath Yatra.
SG Mehta mentioned before the top court, that even in nations where Islam is the state religion women are rebelling against Hijab. SG Mehta also added that such protests taking place in Iran.
End of Article