A lecturer from the government PU college in Udupi where the Hijab row began has lodged a complaint against the Campus Front of India for being threatened, the Karnataka High Court was informed.

Senior Advocate S Naganand who made his submissions on behalf of PU College opposing Hijab on day 9 of the hearing pertaining to the hijab ban told the court that the CFI had threatened teachers who were scared to lodge a complaint. However, on February 22, one of the teachers volunteered to lodge a complaint with the police, he said.

Currently, a full bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice, Justice Krishna S Dixit, and Justice Khaji Jaibunnesa Mohiyuddin are hearing a series of petitions filed by students, teachers, educational institutions, and other organizations regarding the hijab ban on campus.

Naganand told the court that the CFI, which claims to be a voluntary organization, is a radical organization which is spearheading the drum beating of hijab. He also alleged that this was an organization which was involved in spreading commotion and that they instigated parents and students.

While the chief justice sought to know whether anything was known about the CFI, Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadagi said that the information would be placed in a sealed cover before the court. He also told the court that he was unaware of the complaint filed by the teachers and that he would take an update on the same.

During the argument, Naganand also said that allowing students to wear religious attire to school would result in indiscipline. “One section of the orthodox brahmins believe that boys should not wear a shirt after the threading ceremony (upanayanam). “Tomorrow if a category of boys say that they want to come like this, what will happen?” he questioned.

“Let children come to school without any external symbols of religion. A right-wing association of Hindus wants to wear saffron shawls. Tomorrow, Muslim boys will want to don a skull cap. Where is this going to end?” he argued.  

Also read: Hijab is a woman’s choice: Advocate General tells High Court