"Conspiracy is a small but durable seller, retooled every year or so": SG Tushar Mehta informed 'Hijab row not spontaneous, part of larger conspiracy by PFI in 2022', Hijab Advocate goes on anti-Hindu tirade in SC saying India was ‘hijacked by Brahmins’

A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia told Dave that the definition of dignity has changed with time, and it keeps changing.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing some of the petitioners challenging the Karnataka High Court judgment on the hijab, Tuesday, told the Supreme Court that the hijab adds to the dignity and makes a woman very dignified when she wears it, like a Hindu woman who covers her head – it is very dignified.

A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia told Dave that the definition of dignity has changed with time, and it keeps changing. Dave replied true! Dave argued that girls wearing hijab to school do not violate anybody’s peace and safety and there is certainly no danger to tranquillity. And, there is only one aspect of public order, which could be argued, he added.

Dave submitted that the girls want to wear the hijab, so whose constitutional right is violated? The other students? The school? He differentiated between Sabarimala's judgment and the hijab case. The bench replied that in that case, petitioners did not have a fundamental right to enter the temple. Dave said now it has been established that everyone can enter the temple.

The bench queried Dave, in many schools, there can be disparity, therefore, the uniform is there and one cannot see richness or poverty. Dave said I am for uniform and every institution likes identity. 

Dushyant Dave made a slew of preposterous arguments during the plea(s) hearing challenging the order of Karnataka HC upholding the prohibition on wearing headscarves in Pre-University institutions.

From claiming Brahmins had hijacked India to designating Jains and Buddhists as outsiders to selectively quoting Dr. BR Ambedkar, Advocate Dushyant Dave made a bunch of ludicrous arguments while representing the petitioners challenging the hijab ban upheld by the Karnataka High Court.

Here are some of the gems from his anti-Hindu tirade in the Supreme Court:-

The senior counsel representing the petitioners challenging the hijab ban by the Karnataka High Court went into raptures about the Mughal ruler Akbar’s reign in medieval times, claiming that the religion was otherwise “hijacked by Brahmins”.

In another argument, Dave insinuated that Jains, one of the oldest indigenous communities in India, along with Buddhists, were “allowed to be born” in India.

Ironically, Dave quoted Dr Ambedkar to bolster his arguments in favour of the hijab while selectively brushing aside his trenchant criticism of the veil that he voiced on more occasions than one, most notably in his seminal book ‘Pakistan or partition of India’. 

“Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment, it is to be cultivated…Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic,” said Dushyant Dave quoting Ambedkar. 

Contrary to what the Left and their intellectual ‘enablers’ like Dave would have us believe, Dr BR Ambedkar was a staunch opponent of the burqa. He extensively wrote against the practice of purdah that afflicts the Muslim society, sharply noting that watching Muslim women wearing burqas is one of the hideous sights one can witness in India.

“As a consequence of the purdah system, a segregation of the Muslim women is brought about…These burka women walking in the streets is one of the most hideous sights one can witness in India,” Ambedkar wrote in his seminal treatise ‘Pakistan or Partition of India’.

The Supreme Court advocate also fuelled misapprehensions about grooming jihad, the phenomenon that entails targeting Hindu women by Islamists under false pretences. 

Dave tried to whitewash instances of love jihad and instead falsely clubbed a consensual relationship between a Hindu girl and a Muslim to paper over the social menace. He also cited the instance of how Akbar married a Rajput prince but conveniently refrained from mentioning the ubiquity of jauhars during the Mughal rule when Hindu women embraced self-immolation to avoid capture, enslavement and rape by Muslim invaders.

Big Update: SC continues hearing the petitions against the Karnataka HC verdict which upheld the #HijabBan in educational institutions Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the respondent, submits Karnataka Govt's order recommending that all students will wear the prescribed uniform

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that in 2022, a movement was started by the Popular Front of India (PFI) on social media and there were continuous social media messages to “start wearing hijab”. This was not a spontaneous act and was a part of a “larger conspiracy,” he added.

The apex court was hearing arguments on a batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state that have prescribed uniforms.

“Kindly bear two facts in mind, till the year 2021, no girl student was wearing any hijab. Nor this question ever arose. Two, it would be doing a disservice to contend that the impugned notification prohibits only hijab. Other community started coming with saffron shawls,” the Solicitor General stated, Live Law reported.

“Saffron shawls are also prohibited. There was one more dimension. I am not exaggerating, if the Govt would not have acted the way it did, the Govt would have been guilty of dereliction of constitutional duty,” he added.

Tushar Mehta later went on to highlight how on 29 March 2013, a resolution was passed by Udupi PUC to prescribe uniforms for girls. “Students were wearing prescribed uniforms, which did not include hijab,” he stated.

Later on, circular constituting CDC was issued in 2014. CDCs of other PUCs unanimously resolved to have the same uniform as prescribed for previous years, he stated.

The Solicitor General said that at the time of admission, petitioners undertook to comply with all the rules of PUC.

“In 2022, a movement was started in social media by Popular Front of India, there were continuous social media messages – start wearing hijab. This was not a spontaneous act by a few children. They were a part of a larger conspiracy and children were acting as advised,” he added, as per the report by Live Law.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the ban on wearing a Hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka.

Asserting that the hijab is the “identity” of Muslims, senior advocate Dushyant Dave earlier told the Supreme Court on Monday that various acts of omission and commission like Karnataka’s headscarf controversy showed a “pattern to marginalize the minority community”.

“This is not about uniform. I will be able to show to your lordships that by series of acts of commission and acts of omission that have happened, unfortunate incidents, I am not blaming any individual or anybody, but these acts of commission and omission show that there is a pattern to marginalize the minority community,” Dave said.

Arguing that the country has been built on liberal traditions and religious beliefs, Dave, appearing for some of the petitioners, said the kind of atmosphere being seen today was far removed from being called liberal which we have been for 5,000 years. “You (the state authority) are passing this resolution ostensibly saying uniform. Actually, it is for some other purpose. The whole idea is that how do I tell the minority community that you are not allowed to profess your beliefs, you are not allowed to follow your conscience? You will do what I tell you,” Dave said.

“We have not hurt anybody’s sentiments by wearing hijab. Our identity is hijab,” he asserted.

The senior advocate said the Constitution has always been interpreted liberally and never in a restrictive sense, and the scope and ambit of Articles 19 and 21 have been expanded in every possible way. While Article 19 of the Constitution deals with the protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc, Article 21 pertains to the protection of life and personal liberty.

Dave said over 10,000 suicide bombings have taken place in the Islamic world, and in India, only one such incident happened in Pulwama. He was referring to the 2019 terrorist attack in Kashmir’s Pulwama where a suicide bomber targeted a convoy of security forces, killing 40 of them and wounding many others. “That shows that the minority community has placed its faith in us, the majority,” he said.

In the course of arguments, Dave referred to some debates in the Constituent Assembly. “My question is, to what extent the Constituent Assembly debates can be relied upon to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,” asked Justice Hemant Gupta.

“My respectful answer to that is, to the full extent,” Dave said.

Dave also asked does wearing a hijab amount to threatening the unity or integrity of the country. “That nobody is saying,” the bench said, adding, “That even the judgment (of the high court) does not say.”

The Karnataka government’s order of 5 February 2022 by which it banned wearing clothes that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in schools and colleges, was referred to in the apex court.

Several pleas have been filed in the top court against the 15 March verdict of the high court holding that wearing a hijab is not a part of the essential religious practice which can be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.

The high court had dismissed the pleas filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom.

Challenging the 5 February order of the government, the petitioners had argued before the high court that wearing the Islamic headscarf was an innocent practice of faith and an essential religious practice and not a display of religious jingoism.

Karnataka Hijab row

A major controversy erupted in Karnataka in January 2022 after a Udupi school prohibited hijab inside classrooms. Some Muslim girl students, supported by PFI had appealed against this in the Karnataka High Court. On February 25, the court reserved its decision on the case. Protests, allegations, and counter-allegations occurred in response to the hijab ban.

The Karnataka High Court declared on March 15 that wearing a headscarf does not constitute an essential Islamic practice as the petitioners failed to provide evidence in that regard. The Karnataka High Court dismissed all petitions contesting the hijab ban in Karnataka schools and decided that the rules for the uniform dress were fair and that students can not object to respective dress codes mandated by educational institutions.

References:

firstpost.com
opindia.com