Report Wire

Tag: Hijab ban

  • Courts not boards to resolve theological questions, says Justice Dhulia

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The courts usually are not boards to resolve “theological questions”, Supreme Court decide Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia stated on Thursday in his verdict on the Karnataka hijab ban controversy.

    A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia delivered cut up verdicts and referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for structure of an applicable bench to contemplate the contentious problem.

    While Justice Gupta dismissed the appeals difficult the March 15 judgement of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to raise the ban, Justice Dhulia held there shall be no restriction on carrying hijab anyplace within the colleges and faculties of the state.

    In his separate judgement, Justice Dhulia famous that other than the truth that important spiritual apply was not important to the willpower of the dispute, there was one other facet that’s much more essential, which might clarify as to why the courts needs to be sluggish within the issues of figuring out as to what’s a vital spiritual apply.

    “In my humble opinion courts usually are not the boards to resolve theological questions.

    Courts usually are not effectively outfitted to try this for varied causes, however most significantly as a result of there’ll at all times be a couple of viewpoint on a specific spiritual matter, and subsequently nothing provides the authority to the court docket to choose one over the opposite,” he stated in his 73-page verdict.

    ALSO READ: SC delivers cut up verdict on Karnataka Hijab ban

    Justice Dhulia stated the courts, nevertheless, should intrude when the boundaries set by the Constitution are damaged or the place unjustified restrictions are imposed.

    Referring to the apex court docket verdict within the Ram Janmabhoomi case, he famous that the highest court docket had cautioned to not enterprise into areas of theology with which the courts usually are not effectively outfitted.

    “There may be diversity of views within a religion and to choose one over others, may not be correct. Courts should steer clear from interpreting religious scriptures,” he famous.

    Justice Dhulia stated as to what constitutes a vital spiritual apply, in all its complexities, is a matter which is pending consideration earlier than a nine-judge structure bench of the apex court docket and subsequently, it is probably not correct for him to go any additional into this facet.

    He noticed that the Karnataka hijab ban case is “squarely covered” by the case of Bijoe Emmanuel and the ratio laid down there.

    “The decision which is of essential importance in this case for our purposes is the decision given by this court in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel.”

    “It is necessary to refer to this case in some detail, as in my opinion this case is the guiding star which will show us the path laid down by the well established principles of our Constitutional values, the path of understanding and tolerance, which we may also call as ‘reasonable accommodation’, as explained by some of the lawyers before this court,” he stated.

    In the Bijoe Emmanuel case, the apex court docket had upheld the appropriate of the scholars belonging to Jehovah’s Witnesses to not sing the nationwide anthem in the course of the faculty prayer although the scholars stood up and prolonged all respect.

    ALSO READ: Necessary to have self-discipline in colleges however not at value of freedom & dignity: Justice Dhulia

    In that case, the court docket held the actual check of a real democracy is the flexibility of even an insignificant minority to seek out its id below the Constitution.

    “The girls before us today face the same predicament as the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the above case. The present petitioners too wear hijab as an article of their faith. They too believe that it is a part of their religion and social practice,” Justice Dhulia stated.

    He famous that the method of the excessive court docket may have been totally different and as an alternative of straightaway taking the important spiritual apply route, as a threshold requirement, the court docket may have first examined whether or not the restriction imposed by the varsity or the federal government order on carrying hijab have been legitimate restrictions.

    The state authorities’s February 5, 2022 order had banned carrying garments that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in colleges and faculties On March 15, the excessive court docket had dismissed the petitions filed by a piece of Muslim college students of the Government Pre-University Girls College in Karnataka’s Udupi looking for permission to put on the Muslim scarf inside school rooms, ruling it’s not part of the important spiritual apply in Islamic religion.

    NEW DELHI: The courts usually are not boards to resolve “theological questions”, Supreme Court decide Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia stated on Thursday in his verdict on the Karnataka hijab ban controversy.

    A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia delivered cut up verdicts and referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for structure of an applicable bench to contemplate the contentious problem.

    While Justice Gupta dismissed the appeals difficult the March 15 judgement of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to raise the ban, Justice Dhulia held there shall be no restriction on carrying hijab anyplace within the colleges and faculties of the state.

    In his separate judgement, Justice Dhulia famous that other than the truth that important spiritual apply was not important to the willpower of the dispute, there was one other facet that’s much more essential, which might clarify as to why the courts needs to be sluggish within the issues of figuring out as to what’s a vital spiritual apply.

    “In my humble opinion courts usually are not the boards to resolve theological questions.

    Courts usually are not effectively outfitted to try this for varied causes, however most significantly as a result of there’ll at all times be a couple of viewpoint on a specific spiritual matter, and subsequently nothing provides the authority to the court docket to choose one over the opposite,” he stated in his 73-page verdict.

    ALSO READ: SC delivers cut up verdict on Karnataka Hijab ban

    Justice Dhulia stated the courts, nevertheless, should intrude when the boundaries set by the Constitution are damaged or the place unjustified restrictions are imposed.

    Referring to the apex court docket verdict within the Ram Janmabhoomi case, he famous that the highest court docket had cautioned to not enterprise into areas of theology with which the courts usually are not effectively outfitted.

    “There may be diversity of views within a religion and to choose one over others, may not be correct. Courts should steer clear from interpreting religious scriptures,” he famous.

    Justice Dhulia stated as to what constitutes a vital spiritual apply, in all its complexities, is a matter which is pending consideration earlier than a nine-judge structure bench of the apex court docket and subsequently, it is probably not correct for him to go any additional into this facet.

    He noticed that the Karnataka hijab ban case is “squarely covered” by the case of Bijoe Emmanuel and the ratio laid down there.

    “The decision which is of essential importance in this case for our purposes is the decision given by this court in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel.”

    “It is necessary to refer to this case in some detail, as in my opinion this case is the guiding star which will show us the path laid down by the well established principles of our Constitutional values, the path of understanding and tolerance, which we may also call as ‘reasonable accommodation’, as explained by some of the lawyers before this court,” he stated.

    In the Bijoe Emmanuel case, the apex court docket had upheld the appropriate of the scholars belonging to Jehovah’s Witnesses to not sing the nationwide anthem in the course of the faculty prayer although the scholars stood up and prolonged all respect.

    ALSO READ: Necessary to have self-discipline in colleges however not at value of freedom & dignity: Justice Dhulia

    In that case, the court docket held the actual check of a real democracy is the flexibility of even an insignificant minority to seek out its id below the Constitution.

    “The girls before us today face the same predicament as the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the above case. The present petitioners too wear hijab as an article of their faith. They too believe that it is a part of their religion and social practice,” Justice Dhulia stated.

    He famous that the method of the excessive court docket may have been totally different and as an alternative of straightaway taking the important spiritual apply route, as a threshold requirement, the court docket may have first examined whether or not the restriction imposed by the varsity or the federal government order on carrying hijab have been legitimate restrictions.

    The state authorities’s February 5, 2022 order had banned carrying garments that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in colleges and faculties On March 15, the excessive court docket had dismissed the petitions filed by a piece of Muslim college students of the Government Pre-University Girls College in Karnataka’s Udupi looking for permission to put on the Muslim scarf inside school rooms, ruling it’s not part of the important spiritual apply in Islamic religion.

  • Constitutional courtroom should converse in a single voice so far as potential: Justice Dhulia

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: A constitutional courtroom should converse in “one voice” so far as potential and break up verdicts don’t resolve a dispute, Supreme Court choose Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia stated on Thursday disagreeing with the decision of Justice Hemant Gupta within the Karnataka hijab ban case.

    A bench of Justices Gupta and Dhulia delivered break up verdicts within the case and stated the matter be positioned earlier than the Chief Justice of India for structure of an applicable bench.

    While Justice Gupta dismissed the appeals difficult the March 15 judgement of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to elevate the ban on hijab, Justice Dhulia held there shall be no restriction on the sporting of the Muslim scarf anyplace within the colleges and faculties of the state.

    “I had the advantage of going through the judgement of Justice Hemant Gupta. Justice Gupta has recorded each argument which was raised at the Bar before us in the long hearing of the case and he has given his findings on each of the issues. It is a very well composed judgement,” Justice Dhulia famous in his 73-page separate verdict.

    ALSO READ| Asking pre-university woman to take off hijab at college gate invasion of privateness & dignity: Justice Dhulia

    “I am, however, unable to agree with the decision of Justice Gupta. I am therefore giving a separate opinion, on this important matter,” he stated.

    Justice Dhulia stated he’s aware that so far as potential, a constitutional courtroom should converse in a single voice.

    “While I do so, I am conscious that as far as possible, a constitutional court must speak in one voice. Split verdicts and discordant notes do not resolve a dispute. Finality is not reached. But then to borrow the words of Lord Atkin (which he said though in an entirely different context), “finality is an efficient factor, however Justice is best’,” he famous in his verdict.

    Justice Dhulia put aside the excessive courtroom verdict which had refused to elevate the ban on hijab in academic establishments of the state.

    On March 15, the excessive courtroom had dismissed the petitions filed by a bit of Muslim college students of the Government Pre-University Girls College in Karnataka’s Udupi in search of permission to put on the hijab inside school rooms, ruling it isn’t part of the important spiritual observe in Islamic religion.

    NEW DELHI: A constitutional courtroom should converse in “one voice” so far as potential and break up verdicts don’t resolve a dispute, Supreme Court choose Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia stated on Thursday disagreeing with the decision of Justice Hemant Gupta within the Karnataka hijab ban case.

    A bench of Justices Gupta and Dhulia delivered break up verdicts within the case and stated the matter be positioned earlier than the Chief Justice of India for structure of an applicable bench.

    While Justice Gupta dismissed the appeals difficult the March 15 judgement of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to elevate the ban on hijab, Justice Dhulia held there shall be no restriction on the sporting of the Muslim scarf anyplace within the colleges and faculties of the state.

    “I had the advantage of going through the judgement of Justice Hemant Gupta. Justice Gupta has recorded each argument which was raised at the Bar before us in the long hearing of the case and he has given his findings on each of the issues. It is a very well composed judgement,” Justice Dhulia famous in his 73-page separate verdict.

    ALSO READ| Asking pre-university woman to take off hijab at college gate invasion of privateness & dignity: Justice Dhulia

    “I am, however, unable to agree with the decision of Justice Gupta. I am therefore giving a separate opinion, on this important matter,” he stated.

    Justice Dhulia stated he’s aware that so far as potential, a constitutional courtroom should converse in a single voice.

    “While I do so, I am conscious that as far as possible, a constitutional court must speak in one voice. Split verdicts and discordant notes do not resolve a dispute. Finality is not reached. But then to borrow the words of Lord Atkin (which he said though in an entirely different context), “finality is an efficient factor, however Justice is best’,” he famous in his verdict.

    Justice Dhulia put aside the excessive courtroom verdict which had refused to elevate the ban on hijab in academic establishments of the state.

    On March 15, the excessive courtroom had dismissed the petitions filed by a bit of Muslim college students of the Government Pre-University Girls College in Karnataka’s Udupi in search of permission to put on the hijab inside school rooms, ruling it isn’t part of the important spiritual observe in Islamic religion.

  • Men ought to strengthen their minds, free girls from hijab: Haryana minister Anil Vij

    By PTI

    CHANDIGARH: Haryana Minister Anil Vij on Thursday waded into the headband situation saying males ought to strengthen their minds and free girls from the hijab.

    Vij’s tweet got here shortly earlier than the Supreme Court delivered a break up verdict on a batch of pleas difficult the Karnataka High Court judgement refusing to elevate the ban on hijab in instructional establishments of the state.

    “The men who could not control their excitement upon seeing women forced women to wear hijab. The need was to strengthen their mind, but the punishment was given to the women, they were covered from head to toe. This is a grave injustice,” the Haryana Home minister mentioned in a tweet in Hindi.

    जिन पुरुषों का महिलाओ को देखकर मन मचलता था उन्होंने ही महिलाओं को हिजाब डालने के लिए मजबूर किया । आवश्यकता तो अपने मन को मजबूत करने की थी परंतु सजा महिलाओं को दी गई उनको सिर से लेकर पांव तक डाक दिया। यह सरासर नाइंसाफी है । पुरुष अपना मन मजबूत करे और महिलाओ को हिजाब से मुक्ति दें

    — ANIL VIJ MINISTER HARYANA (@anilvijminister) October 13, 2022

    In the identical tweet, he recommended, “Men should strengthen their minds and free women from hijab.”

    In February, amid a row over some college students carrying hijab in Karnataka, Vij had mentioned the prevailing costume code in colleges and schools have to be adopted.

    In view of the break up verdict within the Supreme Court, the bench directed that the appeals in opposition to the excessive court docket verdict be positioned earlier than the Chief Justice of India for constituting an applicable bigger bench.

    CHANDIGARH: Haryana Minister Anil Vij on Thursday waded into the headband situation saying males ought to strengthen their minds and free girls from the hijab.

    Vij’s tweet got here shortly earlier than the Supreme Court delivered a break up verdict on a batch of pleas difficult the Karnataka High Court judgement refusing to elevate the ban on hijab in instructional establishments of the state.

    “The men who could not control their excitement upon seeing women forced women to wear hijab. The need was to strengthen their mind, but the punishment was given to the women, they were covered from head to toe. This is a grave injustice,” the Haryana Home minister mentioned in a tweet in Hindi.

    जिन पुरुषों का महिलाओ को देखकर मन मचलता था उन्होंने ही महिलाओं को हिजाब डालने के लिए मजबूर किया । आवश्यकता तो अपने मन को मजबूत करने की थी परंतु सजा महिलाओं को दी गई उनको सिर से लेकर पांव तक डाक दिया। यह सरासर नाइंसाफी है । पुरुष अपना मन मजबूत करे और महिलाओ को हिजाब से मुक्ति दें
    — ANIL VIJ MINISTER HARYANA (@anilvijminister) October 13, 2022
    In the identical tweet, he recommended, “Men should strengthen their minds and free women from hijab.”

    In February, amid a row over some college students carrying hijab in Karnataka, Vij had mentioned the prevailing costume code in colleges and schools have to be adopted.

    In view of the break up verdict within the Supreme Court, the bench directed that the appeals in opposition to the excessive court docket verdict be positioned earlier than the Chief Justice of India for constituting an applicable bigger bench.

  • SC delivers break up verdict on Karnataka Hijab ban

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court at present delivered a spilt verdict within the pleas difficult Karnataka HC’s ruling of upholding the ban on hijab in academic establishments. 

    Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the appeals difficult the HC’s order whereas Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia allowed the appeals.

    Justice Dhulia whereas permitting the appeals and quashing the GO dated February 5 mentioned, “Wearing of hijab is ultimately a matter of her choice. The ratio laid down by SC in Bijoy Emanuel covers the issue. What weighed in my mind was the education of a girl child. A girl child has a lot of difficulties to face. There are other difficulties as well and whether we’re making her life any better by putting restrictions on education.” 

    Due to the divergence in opinion, the two-judge bench requested the pleas to be positioned earlier than the CJI for constituting an applicable bench. 

    A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia after an in depth listening to of ten days had reserved a verdict in September 2022. 

    The listening to had witnessed a battery of senior legal professionals equivalent to Kapil Sibal, Dushyant Dave, Salman Khurshid, Rajeev Dhawan, Sanjay Hegde, Devdutt Kamat arguing towards the hijab ban. For the State, submissions have been made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Karnataka AG Prabhuling Navadgi and ASG KM Nataraj.

    On March 15, 2022, the Karnataka HC held that sporting of the hijab was not part of important non secular follow which may very well be protected below article 25 (Right to freedom of conscience and free occupation, follow and propagation of faith) of the Constitution. The bench additional held that the prescription of a uniform gown code in academic establishments was not violative of the basic rights of the petitioners.

    The HC’s verdict got here on the petitions filed by a bit of Muslim college students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi. The college students had challenged the state’s February 5 determination that didn’t permit college students to put on the hijab, or customary Islamic headband, to academic establishments.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court at present delivered a spilt verdict within the pleas difficult Karnataka HC’s ruling of upholding the ban on hijab in academic establishments. 

    Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the appeals difficult the HC’s order whereas Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia allowed the appeals.

    Justice Dhulia whereas permitting the appeals and quashing the GO dated February 5 mentioned, “Wearing of hijab is ultimately a matter of her choice. The ratio laid down by SC in Bijoy Emanuel covers the issue. What weighed in my mind was the education of a girl child. A girl child has a lot of difficulties to face. There are other difficulties as well and whether we’re making her life any better by putting restrictions on education.” 

    Due to the divergence in opinion, the two-judge bench requested the pleas to be positioned earlier than the CJI for constituting an applicable bench. 

    A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia after an in depth listening to of ten days had reserved a verdict in September 2022. 

    The listening to had witnessed a battery of senior legal professionals equivalent to Kapil Sibal, Dushyant Dave, Salman Khurshid, Rajeev Dhawan, Sanjay Hegde, Devdutt Kamat arguing towards the hijab ban. For the State, submissions have been made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Karnataka AG Prabhuling Navadgi and ASG KM Nataraj.

    On March 15, 2022, the Karnataka HC held that sporting of the hijab was not part of important non secular follow which may very well be protected below article 25 (Right to freedom of conscience and free occupation, follow and propagation of faith) of the Constitution. The bench additional held that the prescription of a uniform gown code in academic establishments was not violative of the basic rights of the petitioners.

    The HC’s verdict got here on the petitions filed by a bit of Muslim college students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi. The college students had challenged the state’s February 5 determination that didn’t permit college students to put on the hijab, or customary Islamic headband, to academic establishments.

  • Supreme Court to pronounce verdict on Karnataka’s hijab ban on Thursday

    By IANS

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on a clutch of petitions difficult the Karnataka authorities’s February 5 order, prohibiting sporting of hijab inside lecture rooms in pre-university faculties.

    According to the apex courtroom web site, the bench will pronounce the judgment on October 13.

    After 10 days of marathon hearings, on September 22, a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia reserved their judgment after listening to arguments from the counsel representing the state authorities, academics, and the petitioners, who moved the apex courtroom difficult the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to raise the ban on hijab in academic establishments of the state.

    During the listening to, the petitioners contended that the excessive courtroom had wrongly relied upon important non secular observe take a look at for the aim.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Karnataka authorities, had alleged that until the yr 2021, no woman pupil was sporting any hijab and uniform being a part of important self-discipline in colleges was being scrupulously adopted. However, then a motion began on social media by an organisation known as Popular Front of India (PFI) and the motion was designed to create an agitation. Mehta added there have been messages on social media to start sporting hijab and this was not a spontaneous act, as a substitute it was part of bigger conspiracy, and kids had been appearing as suggested.

    Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing a number of the petitioners, submitted that the argument of PFI was not raised earlier than the excessive courtroom and it’s an argument launched to create prejudice.

    The petitioners claimed the Karnataka authorities order (GO) focused Muslim girls and violated Article 14, and 15 of the Constitution. Therefore, it was irrational, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

    Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing a number of the petitioners, whereas making rejoinder submissions, stated for individuals who are believers, hijab is crucial and for individuals who will not be believers, it isn’t important. He added that there was no trigger to concern pointers in February this yr.

    The petitioners’ counsel vehemently argued that the federal government order violated their basic proper to observe faith and cultural rights, which had been assured beneath the Constitution.

    Dave submitted that the Department of Education had issued pointers for educational yr 2021-2022, and in accordance with it, uniform is just not obligatory. Therefore, Karnataka GO dated February 5 couldn’t supersede these pointers, he added.

    A battery of different senior advocates — Rajeev Dhavan, Kapil Sibal, Colin Gonsalves, Devadatt Kamat, Sanjay Hegde, Salman Khurshid – additionally represented the petitioners earlier than the apex courtroom.

    The Karnataka authorities was represented by Solicitor General Mehta and Advocate General Prabhuling Ok. Navadgi.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on a clutch of petitions difficult the Karnataka authorities’s February 5 order, prohibiting sporting of hijab inside lecture rooms in pre-university faculties.

    According to the apex courtroom web site, the bench will pronounce the judgment on October 13.

    After 10 days of marathon hearings, on September 22, a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia reserved their judgment after listening to arguments from the counsel representing the state authorities, academics, and the petitioners, who moved the apex courtroom difficult the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to raise the ban on hijab in academic establishments of the state.

    During the listening to, the petitioners contended that the excessive courtroom had wrongly relied upon important non secular observe take a look at for the aim.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Karnataka authorities, had alleged that until the yr 2021, no woman pupil was sporting any hijab and uniform being a part of important self-discipline in colleges was being scrupulously adopted. However, then a motion began on social media by an organisation known as Popular Front of India (PFI) and the motion was designed to create an agitation. Mehta added there have been messages on social media to start sporting hijab and this was not a spontaneous act, as a substitute it was part of bigger conspiracy, and kids had been appearing as suggested.

    Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing a number of the petitioners, submitted that the argument of PFI was not raised earlier than the excessive courtroom and it’s an argument launched to create prejudice.

    The petitioners claimed the Karnataka authorities order (GO) focused Muslim girls and violated Article 14, and 15 of the Constitution. Therefore, it was irrational, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

    Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing a number of the petitioners, whereas making rejoinder submissions, stated for individuals who are believers, hijab is crucial and for individuals who will not be believers, it isn’t important. He added that there was no trigger to concern pointers in February this yr.

    The petitioners’ counsel vehemently argued that the federal government order violated their basic proper to observe faith and cultural rights, which had been assured beneath the Constitution.

    Dave submitted that the Department of Education had issued pointers for educational yr 2021-2022, and in accordance with it, uniform is just not obligatory. Therefore, Karnataka GO dated February 5 couldn’t supersede these pointers, he added.

    A battery of different senior advocates — Rajeev Dhavan, Kapil Sibal, Colin Gonsalves, Devadatt Kamat, Sanjay Hegde, Salman Khurshid – additionally represented the petitioners earlier than the apex courtroom.

    The Karnataka authorities was represented by Solicitor General Mehta and Advocate General Prabhuling Ok. Navadgi.

  • Hijab ban: Hearing over, SC verdict possible by October 14

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: After an intensive listening to of 10 days, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia on Thursday reserved a verdict in pleas difficult Karnataka HC’s ruling of upholding the ban of hijab in instructional establishments. Justice Gupta is to retire on October 16 and thus it’s possible that the bench might announce the decision by October 14.

    Referring to part of the round mentioned that that sure spiritual observances have been inflicting issues within the campus and interfering with unity, senior advocate Dushyant Dave in his rejoinder submissions instructed the bench that the round dated February 5, 2022, had no reference to the Popular Front of India.

    He mentioned that he “regrets” that allegation made by the state that the controversy was provoked by a social media motion began by the PFI was with none pleading and wasn’t talked about within the HC. Relying on the rules issued by the Department of Education in 2021-22, Dave mentioned that the rules mentioned that uniform was not obligatory. He additionally added that carrying of hijab in Islam for some individuals who have been believers was important and for many who weren’t believers was not important. 

    Supporting Dave’s competition on the side of the involvement of PFI in fuming the controversy, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi contended that the Government Order which restrained college students to put on customary Islamic headscarves was unlawful and sought to focus on a selected neighborhood. 

    “I can understand if the circular says no religious symbol is allowed. The circular speaks only of the head scarf. Even though it purports to be neutral it targets a particular community. Circular’s purport has to be read as a whole. It is strange that the State, which should be concerned about educating girls, is concerned more about discipline and is enforcing this which can lead to denying education to girls,” Ahmadi argued. 

    Stressing on the intent behind the event of “essential religious practice test”, senior advocate Salman Khurshid for the scholars argued that the take a look at was developed to steadiness the rights, to take away issues which have grown on faith, in order that faith doesn’t undergo. 

    NEW DELHI: After an intensive listening to of 10 days, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia on Thursday reserved a verdict in pleas difficult Karnataka HC’s ruling of upholding the ban of hijab in instructional establishments. Justice Gupta is to retire on October 16 and thus it’s possible that the bench might announce the decision by October 14.

    Referring to part of the round mentioned that that sure spiritual observances have been inflicting issues within the campus and interfering with unity, senior advocate Dushyant Dave in his rejoinder submissions instructed the bench that the round dated February 5, 2022, had no reference to the Popular Front of India.

    He mentioned that he “regrets” that allegation made by the state that the controversy was provoked by a social media motion began by the PFI was with none pleading and wasn’t talked about within the HC. Relying on the rules issued by the Department of Education in 2021-22, Dave mentioned that the rules mentioned that uniform was not obligatory. He additionally added that carrying of hijab in Islam for some individuals who have been believers was important and for many who weren’t believers was not important. 

    Supporting Dave’s competition on the side of the involvement of PFI in fuming the controversy, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi contended that the Government Order which restrained college students to put on customary Islamic headscarves was unlawful and sought to focus on a selected neighborhood. 

    “I can understand if the circular says no religious symbol is allowed. The circular speaks only of the head scarf. Even though it purports to be neutral it targets a particular community. Circular’s purport has to be read as a whole. It is strange that the State, which should be concerned about educating girls, is concerned more about discipline and is enforcing this which can lead to denying education to girls,” Ahmadi argued. 

    Stressing on the intent behind the event of “essential religious practice test”, senior advocate Salman Khurshid for the scholars argued that the take a look at was developed to steadiness the rights, to take away issues which have grown on faith, in order that faith doesn’t undergo. 

  • Karnataka hijab ban: ‘G.O. restraining college students to put on headscarves unlawful’, argue college students; SC reserves verdict 

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: After an intensive listening to of 10 days, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia on Thursday reserved the decision in pleas difficult Karnataka HC’s order upholding the ban on hijab in instructional establishments. 

    Referring to part of the round which mentioned that sure spiritual observances had been inflicting issues within the campus and interfering with unity, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave in his rejoinder submissions informed the bench that the round dated February 5, 2022, had no reference to the Popular Front of India.

    He mentioned that he “regrets” the allegation by the state that the controversy was provoked by a social media motion began by the PFI with none pleading and wasn’t talked about within the HC.

    Relying on the rules issued by the Department of Education in 2021-22, Dave famous that uniform was not obligatory. He additionally added that carrying of hijab in Islam for some individuals who had been believers was important and for many who weren’t believers was not important. 

    Supporting Dave’s competition on the facet of the involvement of PFI in fuming the controversy, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi contended that the Government Order which restrained college students to put on customary Islamic headscarves was unlawful and sought to focus on a selected neighborhood. 

    “I can understand if the circular says no religious symbol is allowed. The circular speaks only of the head scarf. Even though it purports to be neutral it targets a particular community. Circular’s purport has to be read as a whole. It is strange that the State, which should be concerned about educating girls, is concerned more about discipline and is enforcing this which can lead to denying education to girls,” Ahmadi argued. 

    Stressing on the intent behind the event of the “essential religious practice test”, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid for the scholars argued that the take a look at was developed to stability the rights, to take away issues which have grown on faith, in order that faith doesn’t endure. 

    In response to the state’s competition that Muslim ladies in Turkey and France did stop to be Muslim in the event that they weren’t carrying hijab, Khurshid mentioned, “In France, you can’t even show a cross because in public places no religious symbol can’t be exhibited. The general proposition in France is that anything of religious belief is not to be displayed in public. In Mexico, for a long time, the President for a long time could not even go to the Church.”

    Senior Advocate Devdat Kamat argued that the principal of the varsity couldn’t determine on public order because it was a state topic. “At the first instance of some disturbance, you cannot raise an issue of public order. Public order has to be interpreted in a manner of the aid of fundamental rights,” he additionally added. 

    NEW DELHI: After an intensive listening to of 10 days, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia on Thursday reserved the decision in pleas difficult Karnataka HC’s order upholding the ban on hijab in instructional establishments. 

    Referring to part of the round which mentioned that sure spiritual observances had been inflicting issues within the campus and interfering with unity, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave in his rejoinder submissions informed the bench that the round dated February 5, 2022, had no reference to the Popular Front of India.

    He mentioned that he “regrets” the allegation by the state that the controversy was provoked by a social media motion began by the PFI with none pleading and wasn’t talked about within the HC.

    Relying on the rules issued by the Department of Education in 2021-22, Dave famous that uniform was not obligatory. He additionally added that carrying of hijab in Islam for some individuals who had been believers was important and for many who weren’t believers was not important. 

    Supporting Dave’s competition on the facet of the involvement of PFI in fuming the controversy, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi contended that the Government Order which restrained college students to put on customary Islamic headscarves was unlawful and sought to focus on a selected neighborhood. 

    “I can understand if the circular says no religious symbol is allowed. The circular speaks only of the head scarf. Even though it purports to be neutral it targets a particular community. Circular’s purport has to be read as a whole. It is strange that the State, which should be concerned about educating girls, is concerned more about discipline and is enforcing this which can lead to denying education to girls,” Ahmadi argued. 

    Stressing on the intent behind the event of the “essential religious practice test”, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid for the scholars argued that the take a look at was developed to stability the rights, to take away issues which have grown on faith, in order that faith doesn’t endure. 

    In response to the state’s competition that Muslim ladies in Turkey and France did stop to be Muslim in the event that they weren’t carrying hijab, Khurshid mentioned, “In France, you can’t even show a cross because in public places no religious symbol can’t be exhibited. The general proposition in France is that anything of religious belief is not to be displayed in public. In Mexico, for a long time, the President for a long time could not even go to the Church.”

    Senior Advocate Devdat Kamat argued that the principal of the varsity couldn’t determine on public order because it was a state topic. “At the first instance of some disturbance, you cannot raise an issue of public order. Public order has to be interpreted in a manner of the aid of fundamental rights,” he additionally added. 

  • Hijab ban: Supreme Court concludes listening to, reserves judgment

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions difficult the Karnataka High Court judgement refusing to elevate the ban on hijab in instructional establishments of the state.

    On March 15, the excessive court docket had dismissed petitions filed by a piece of Muslim college students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi searching for permission to put on hijab contained in the classroom, saying it isn’t part of the important non secular follow in Islamic religion.

    The state authorities had, by its order of February 5, 2022, banned carrying garments that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in faculties and faculties.

    Several pleas have been filed within the apex court docket difficult the excessive court docket verdict.

    A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia reserved its verdict within the matter.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions difficult the Karnataka High Court judgement refusing to elevate the ban on hijab in instructional establishments of the state.

    On March 15, the excessive court docket had dismissed petitions filed by a piece of Muslim college students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi searching for permission to put on hijab contained in the classroom, saying it isn’t part of the important non secular follow in Islamic religion.

    The state authorities had, by its order of February 5, 2022, banned carrying garments that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in faculties and faculties.

    Several pleas have been filed within the apex court docket difficult the excessive court docket verdict.

    A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia reserved its verdict within the matter.

  • Hijab Ban| Rules say that instructional establishments have energy to prescribe uniform: Supreme Court

    Express News Service

    While listening to pleas difficult Karnataka HC’s verdict of upholding the ban on hijab, the Supreme Court on Thursday opined that there have been statutory guidelines which say that instructional establishments have the ability to prescribe uniforms. 

    Responding to Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s rivalry that the faculties couldn’t prohibit entry for not carrying a gown and {that a} public establishment significantly a authorities establishment couldn’t impose a gown code, Justice Hemant Gupta requested, “So your submission is that government schools can’t have a uniform?” 

    “Yes but even if they can, they can’t restrict hijab,” Bhushan responded.  “The rules they say have the power to prescribe uniforms. Hijab is different,” Justice Dhulia mentioned. 

    Bhushan additionally argued that over time, Muslim women carrying hijab had acquired relgious id which was protected beneath article 25 of the Constitution  “It may not be prescribed as an essential practice by Quran but if it is bona fide practice followed by several women, it cannot be proscribed,” he added. 

    To make good his submission that the extreme fall out of the Government Order (GO)  which restrained college students to put on the hijab, or customary Islamic headband to instructional establishments was the dropout of Muslim women, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal referred to the RTI reply obtained by Deccan Herald as per which 145 out of 900 Muslim women in Dakshina Kannada took switch certificates (TC’s).

    Responding to the decide’s query as as to if the TC’s had been taken after completion of the category, Sibal mentioned that they had been taken earlier than completion of the category. 

    “See the national impact of upholding such an order, it can be very disturbing and allows invasion of rights of persons who are protected under the Constitution,” Sibal mentioned. 

    He additionally added that the consequence of depriving younger women is depriving them of the basic proper of entry to training, privateness, dignity.  Sibal additionally mentioned that there was no “compelling need” for the state authorities to move the GO. 

    Referring to some college students carrying orange shawls to protest towards Hijab,  the bench mentioned, “Some other students started wearing gamcha and all, that’s why they passed an order.” 

    “Preserving the composite nature of our culture is a fundamental duty. It’s their fundamental duty to allow us to wear it. They can’t object, who are they to object? They have no right to object. They tried to create an environment in which the state takes action. Individuals on the roadside cannot say you don’t wear a hijab. Where is the question of saying that in school,” Sibal responded. 

    Karnataka HC’s judgement will not be respectful of the minority neighborhood, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves informed the courtroom. He additionally mentioned the judges and courts should ask that if the turban is allowed, why not hijab? Apart from the Constitutional safety 75 years in the past, what’s the distinction between a turban and hijab? Women really feel concerning the hijab with the identical depth and religiosity as a Sikh boy feels concerning the turban.

    Senior Advocate Jayana Kothari submitted that the ban solely affected Muslim women carrying hijab and that promoted intersectional discrimination because it discriminated faith in addition to intercourse.

    “Across the countries, most people who practice Islam recognise wearing of hijab as part of their religious and cultural practice. When a large number of courts across the world and a large segment of the population across the world recognize the hijab as part of religious and cultural practice, who are we to reinvent the world and say it’s not an essential practice? We are part of a global village and we don’t live in isolation,” Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora submitted. 

    Emphasising the truth that there isn’t any idea of barter of basic rights, Advocate Shoeb Alam mentioned, GO was an govt order & if the federal government wished to limit hijab, it might solely be carried out by means of regulation. 

    While listening to pleas difficult Karnataka HC’s verdict of upholding the ban on hijab, the Supreme Court on Thursday opined that there have been statutory guidelines which say that instructional establishments have the ability to prescribe uniforms. 

    Responding to Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s rivalry that the faculties couldn’t prohibit entry for not carrying a gown and {that a} public establishment significantly a authorities establishment couldn’t impose a gown code, Justice Hemant Gupta requested, “So your submission is that government schools can’t have a uniform?” 

    “Yes but even if they can, they can’t restrict hijab,” Bhushan responded.  “The rules they say have the power to prescribe uniforms. Hijab is different,” Justice Dhulia mentioned. 

    Bhushan additionally argued that over time, Muslim women carrying hijab had acquired relgious id which was protected beneath article 25 of the Constitution  “It may not be prescribed as an essential practice by Quran but if it is bona fide practice followed by several women, it cannot be proscribed,” he added. 

    To make good his submission that the extreme fall out of the Government Order (GO)  which restrained college students to put on the hijab, or customary Islamic headband to instructional establishments was the dropout of Muslim women, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal referred to the RTI reply obtained by Deccan Herald as per which 145 out of 900 Muslim women in Dakshina Kannada took switch certificates (TC’s).

    Responding to the decide’s query as as to if the TC’s had been taken after completion of the category, Sibal mentioned that they had been taken earlier than completion of the category. 

    “See the national impact of upholding such an order, it can be very disturbing and allows invasion of rights of persons who are protected under the Constitution,” Sibal mentioned. 

    He additionally added that the consequence of depriving younger women is depriving them of the basic proper of entry to training, privateness, dignity.  Sibal additionally mentioned that there was no “compelling need” for the state authorities to move the GO. 

    Referring to some college students carrying orange shawls to protest towards Hijab,  the bench mentioned, “Some other students started wearing gamcha and all, that’s why they passed an order.” 

    “Preserving the composite nature of our culture is a fundamental duty. It’s their fundamental duty to allow us to wear it. They can’t object, who are they to object? They have no right to object. They tried to create an environment in which the state takes action. Individuals on the roadside cannot say you don’t wear a hijab. Where is the question of saying that in school,” Sibal responded. 

    Karnataka HC’s judgement will not be respectful of the minority neighborhood, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves informed the courtroom. He additionally mentioned the judges and courts should ask that if the turban is allowed, why not hijab? Apart from the Constitutional safety 75 years in the past, what’s the distinction between a turban and hijab? Women really feel concerning the hijab with the identical depth and religiosity as a Sikh boy feels concerning the turban.

    Senior Advocate Jayana Kothari submitted that the ban solely affected Muslim women carrying hijab and that promoted intersectional discrimination because it discriminated faith in addition to intercourse.

    “Across the countries, most people who practice Islam recognise wearing of hijab as part of their religious and cultural practice. When a large number of courts across the world and a large segment of the population across the world recognize the hijab as part of religious and cultural practice, who are we to reinvent the world and say it’s not an essential practice? We are part of a global village and we don’t live in isolation,” Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora submitted. 

    Emphasising the truth that there isn’t any idea of barter of basic rights, Advocate Shoeb Alam mentioned, GO was an govt order & if the federal government wished to limit hijab, it might solely be carried out by means of regulation. 

  • Women sporting hijab should not be seemed upon as caricatures however with dignity: Students to SC 

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: Students difficult Karnataka HC’s verdict of upholding ban of hijab on Monday instructed the SC that ladies sporting hijab should not be seemed upon as caricatures however have to be seemed upon with dignity. 

    “Women who wear hijab must not be looked upon as caricatures. They must be looked upon with dignity. They are strong-willed women and they feel they have got the power because of this. Nobody can impose their judgments on them,” Senior Advocate Yusuf Mucchala mentioned whereas urging the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia to refer the matter to a structure bench. 

    Referring to sure paperwork highlighting the violation of the Muslim women’ proper to violation as a result of non-acceptance of their cultural and non secular rights, the senior advocate mentioned, “merely for wearing a piece of cloth overhead, education is not denied. Wearing a turban is not objected to. If you tolerate that, you are tolerating diversity.”

    It was additionally the senior advocate’s rivalry that denial of entry to the scholars sporting hijab had resulted in violation of the basic proper to entry training, private dignity, privateness in addition to proper to observe faith and that these rights have been supplementary to one another. 

    Justice Gupta the presiding choose of the bench at this juncture remarked that the HC merely mentioned that the correct to conscience and the correct to observe faith have been mutually unique. 

    During the listening to, Mucchala had contended that the HC mustn’t have gone into the interpretation of the Quran. Responding to his arguments, the bench mentioned that the HC had no selection however to take action because it was argued that sporting of hijab ban was a vital non secular observe. 

    “Constitution clearly provides that court should not lay down religion for people to follow, court should not interpret religious scriptures,” Mucchala had mentioned. 

    Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid additionally showing for the scholars submitted that sporting of hijab was a matter of faith, tradition, conscience, tradition and dignity. 

    “We will not say uniform must be dispensed with but there is something in addition with the uniform which should be permitted,” Khurshid had additionally mentioned. 

    While posting the matter for Wednesday, SC hinted that it supposed to conclude listening to of the pleas difficult HC’s order until September 16. In this regards requested the events assailing the ban to conclude its arguments until Thursday and the state to conclude in two days. 

    NEW DELHI: Students difficult Karnataka HC’s verdict of upholding ban of hijab on Monday instructed the SC that ladies sporting hijab should not be seemed upon as caricatures however have to be seemed upon with dignity. 

    “Women who wear hijab must not be looked upon as caricatures. They must be looked upon with dignity. They are strong-willed women and they feel they have got the power because of this. Nobody can impose their judgments on them,” Senior Advocate Yusuf Mucchala mentioned whereas urging the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia to refer the matter to a structure bench. 

    Referring to sure paperwork highlighting the violation of the Muslim women’ proper to violation as a result of non-acceptance of their cultural and non secular rights, the senior advocate mentioned, “merely for wearing a piece of cloth overhead, education is not denied. Wearing a turban is not objected to. If you tolerate that, you are tolerating diversity.”

    It was additionally the senior advocate’s rivalry that denial of entry to the scholars sporting hijab had resulted in violation of the basic proper to entry training, private dignity, privateness in addition to proper to observe faith and that these rights have been supplementary to one another. 

    Justice Gupta the presiding choose of the bench at this juncture remarked that the HC merely mentioned that the correct to conscience and the correct to observe faith have been mutually unique. 

    During the listening to, Mucchala had contended that the HC mustn’t have gone into the interpretation of the Quran. Responding to his arguments, the bench mentioned that the HC had no selection however to take action because it was argued that sporting of hijab ban was a vital non secular observe. 

    “Constitution clearly provides that court should not lay down religion for people to follow, court should not interpret religious scriptures,” Mucchala had mentioned. 

    Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid additionally showing for the scholars submitted that sporting of hijab was a matter of faith, tradition, conscience, tradition and dignity. 

    “We will not say uniform must be dispensed with but there is something in addition with the uniform which should be permitted,” Khurshid had additionally mentioned. 

    While posting the matter for Wednesday, SC hinted that it supposed to conclude listening to of the pleas difficult HC’s order until September 16. In this regards requested the events assailing the ban to conclude its arguments until Thursday and the state to conclude in two days.