The hijab row was triggered in Karnataka’s Udupi by radical Islamist organization CFI/PFI using four of its female members. The English language media (ELM) further aided the cause of the Islamists by fanning sentiments across the country so much so that a nation like Pakistan that subjects its Hindus and other minority populations to unspeakable horrors jumped into the fray.

The Islamist design is becoming clearer by the day as Hindus are facing attacks across the country for merely voicing their opinions on the issue. 26-year-old Bajrang Dal leader Harsha from Shivamogga was hacked to death while Kanpur RSS Nagar Pracharak Manish was attacked with iron rods. Even as an attempt is being made by radical Islamists to destabilize the nation, the Karnataka High Court has been conducting hearings in the hijab ban case.

A full bench hearing was held by the Karnataka High Court where petitioner Ghanshyam Upadhyay pleaded for a ban on religious clothing. He was represented by Adv. Subhash Jha along with advocates Dwivendra Dubey, Rajesh Patil, and Siddharth Jha. They argued in favor of banning the hijab and provided various precedents showing that the Islamic headgear wasn’t compulsory.

We reached out to Advocate Dwivendra Dubey who provided us the following account that highlights that hijab isn’t compulsory as per Islamic tenets, the precedence available for banning the same, and why uniform must be promoted over religious clothing.

“Today I appeared with Adv. Subhash Jha before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Hijab Ban Case, we argued on the basis of Judgments given by the courts with respect to Hijab and also pointed out that Hijab is not an essential part of Islam.

We gave a judgment where the case was filed by a lawyer for wearing dhoti-kurta by advocates in court room. He argued that not permitting of dhoti-kurta was against national culture. Allahabad HC rejected.

AIR 1974 All 133 – Prayag Das vs Civil Judge, Bulandshahr And Ors.

We gave another judgement in the case of Dr. Vincent Panikulangara v. Union Of India “In the second place,a uniform prescribed dress worn by the members of the Bar induces a seriousness of purpose and a sense of decorum which are highly conducive to the dispensation of justice..”

We mentioned another judgement In Fathema Hussain Syed Vs Bharat Education Society (2002) where the Bombay high court turned down a girl student’s plea for wearing a head scarf in a private school in violation of the dress code.

Mr. Jha added, “An agitation of this magnitude cannot be orchestrated overnight. This cannot be turn out of blue. There are photographs showing the girls were not wearing hijab earlier. Suddenly petitions are filed one after another, senior lawyers across the country are engaged”

Mr. Jha further told that “Attendant circumstances indicate that there is more to it than meets the eye. Prima facie credible information is only necessary to set criminal law into motion. Court may call for a report from Union of India.”.

Mr. Jha informed the court that One young boy #Harsha was killed some radical organization is behind the murder.

We were the first who raised the voice for Harsha before the Hon’ble Chief Justice.

We gave another landmark judgement of Malaysian Federal court in MEOR ATIQULRAHMAN ISHAK & ORS v. FATIMAH SIHI & ORS FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA where the court held wearing of turban by a Muslim boy was not essential.”

There is ample precedence for promoting the uniform over religious clothing and the present crisis is nothing but a ploy of radical Islamists aided by opportunist politicians and anti-Hindu media.