Hijab Row: Karnataka HC interprets Quran, claims petitioners' lawyer in Supreme Court

Pankaj Prasad
Supreme Court
Supreme Court

In the hijab ban controversy, the counsel for the petitioners referred to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court saying that the courts are institutionally incompetent to interpret the Quran.

Hijab Row: In the Supreme Court on Monday in the hijab ban controversy, the counsel for the petitioners said that the Karnataka High Court did an objectionable act by trying to interpret the Holy Quran and saying that wearing hijab by Muslim women is not a necessary religious practice.

The rights of Muslim girls were affected by the High Court system

Referring to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court, the counsel for the petitioners said that the courts are institutionally incompetent to interpret the Quran. Senior advocate YH Muchhal, appearing for one of the petitioners, claimed that many rights of Muslim girls have been affected by the ruling of the Karnataka High Court.

The lawyer said - we are concerned about the rights of the people

A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing arguments on petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision which refused to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions in the state. The lawyer said that as far as we are concerned, whether hijab is an essential part of religion or not is completely irrelevant. We are really concerned about the rights of the people, we are not considering the Muslim religious part.

Supreme Court's response

Challenging the High Court's decision, the lawyer said that the court has done a very objectionable act. The bench said, tell us what is objectionable. After this, the lawyer referred to an earlier judgment of the apex court and said that courts cannot and should not go on the path of interpretation of Quran and that is what the High Court has done. He said the courts are institutionally incompetent to interpret the Quran. However, the top court said that the petitioners had moved the high court and said that hijab is an essential religious practice. The bench said that someone raised the matter. What option did the High Court have other than to deal with it. First you claim it to be a right and when the High Court gives its order like this or that then you say it cannot be. The top court said that in fact, you are proving yourself wrong.