Petitioner says Karnataka govt order prescribing dress code misunderstands concept of fraternity

New Delhi [India], September 14 : A petitioner on Wednesday argued before the Supreme Court that Karnataka Government's order on prescribing uniforms in educational institutes has misunderstood the concept of fraternity.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for one of the petitioners, apprised the court that in the Preamble, Equality and Liberty are qualified while Fraternity is absolute. He said that Fraternity is understood as a brotherhood, that is to recognise diversity.
The submission came when Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi was explaining the purpose of introducing fraternity as a constitutional value.
Justice Hemant Gupta said that as per Hindu translation, people understand secularism as Dharmnirpeksh, but the text says Panthnirpeksh. The court noted that the constitution was secular even in the absence of the word secular.
"We did not become secular just by adding the word. Even before we were secular," Justice Hemant Gupta said.
A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing various pleas against Karnataka HC's judgement upholding the ban of Hijab in educational institutes
Advocate Ahmadi said that the impugned Govt Order has misunderstood the concept of fraternity and confuses the same anti-thesis of diversity as he quoted some portions of GO.
Justice Dhulia remarked that when the authorities concerned wrote the GO, they may not have been aware that it would be put to this scrutiny. The court observed that authorities concerned may have thought that peace should be maintained.
Ahmadi said that Karnataka Education Act promotes unity in diversity and the circular is against the objective of the Act.
Senior Advocate Ahmadi asked why should someone get provoked if someone wears Hijab and goes to school. The senior lawyer also said that if it provokes, then that needs to be addressed.
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for one of the petitioners said the right to dress is part of free speech, and it is only subject to public order
Senior Advocate Dhavan said that today there is a lot of discontent in the majority community to knock down whatever comes as Islam
Senior Advocate Dhavan referred to Kerala HC's opinion on essential practice and says Kerala HC's opinion differs from Karnataka HC.
Senior Advocate Dhavan said in Kenya, an attempt was made to abolish the Hijab and the High Court of Kenya took the view it was unconstitutional.
Senior Advocate said this was probably to target Muslims and Muslim women mainly, and it violates Articles 14 and 15 and this kind of targeting is not permissible in Constitution.
As the hearing remained inconclusive today, the matter will continue to be heard tomorrow as well.