Report Wire

Tag: hijab row

  • Supreme Court to contemplate organising three-judge bench to listen to Karnataka Hijab ban row

    By PTI

    The Supreme Court on Monday stated it is going to contemplate organising a three-judge bench to adjudicate the case associated to sporting of the Islamic head overlaying in Karnataka colleges following its break up verdict.

    A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandarchud, and Justices V Ramasubramanian and JB Pardiwala, took be aware of the submissions of senior advocate Meenakshi Arora that an interim order was wanted protecting in thoughts the sensible examinations, scheduled for some courses from February 6 within the state.

    “This is the headscarf matter. The girls have practical examinations from February 6, 2023 and this matter needs to be listed for interim directions so that they can appear. The practical examinations will be held in government schools,” the senior lawyer stated, showing for some college students.

    “I will examine it. This is a three judge bench matter. We will allot a date,” the CJI stated.

    A two choose bench of the apex courtroom had on October 13, final yr delivered opposing verdicts within the hijab controversy, and urged the Chief Justice to represent an acceptable bench to adjudicate the case that stemmed from a ban on sporting of Islamic head overlaying in Karnataka colleges.

    While Justice Hemant Gupta, since retired, had dismissed the appeals difficult the March 15 judgement of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to raise the ban, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia held there will probably be no restriction on the sporting of hijab wherever within the colleges and schools of the state.

    Permitting a neighborhood to put on its spiritual symbols to colleges will probably be an “antithesis to secularism,” Justice Gupta had stated, whereas Justice Dhulia insisted that sporting the Muslim scarf ought to merely be a “matter of choice”.

    With the apex courtroom delivering a break up verdict, the excessive courtroom’s judgement nonetheless holds the sector.

    However, the break up verdict held off a everlasting decision of the row over hijab as each judges urged inserting the matter earlier than a bigger bench for adjudication.

    On March 15, the excessive courtroom dismissed the petitions filed by a piece 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 lecture rooms, ruling it isn’t part of the important spiritual apply in Islamic religion.

    Several appeals had been filed within the apex courtroom towards the decision.

    The Supreme Court on Monday stated it is going to contemplate organising a three-judge bench to adjudicate the case associated to sporting of the Islamic head overlaying in Karnataka colleges following its break up verdict.

    A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandarchud, and Justices V Ramasubramanian and JB Pardiwala, took be aware of the submissions of senior advocate Meenakshi Arora that an interim order was wanted protecting in thoughts the sensible examinations, scheduled for some courses from February 6 within the state.

    “This is the headscarf matter. The girls have practical examinations from February 6, 2023 and this matter needs to be listed for interim directions so that they can appear. The practical examinations will be held in government schools,” the senior lawyer stated, showing for some college students.

    “I will examine it. This is a three judge bench matter. We will allot a date,” the CJI stated.

    A two choose bench of the apex courtroom had on October 13, final yr delivered opposing verdicts within the hijab controversy, and urged the Chief Justice to represent an acceptable bench to adjudicate the case that stemmed from a ban on sporting of Islamic head overlaying in Karnataka colleges.

    While Justice Hemant Gupta, since retired, had dismissed the appeals difficult the March 15 judgement of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to raise the ban, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia held there will probably be no restriction on the sporting of hijab wherever within the colleges and schools of the state.

    Permitting a neighborhood to put on its spiritual symbols to colleges will probably be an “antithesis to secularism,” Justice Gupta had stated, whereas Justice Dhulia insisted that sporting the Muslim scarf ought to merely be a “matter of choice”.

    With the apex courtroom delivering a break up verdict, the excessive courtroom’s judgement nonetheless holds the sector.

    However, the break up verdict held off a everlasting decision of the row over hijab as each judges urged inserting the matter earlier than a bigger bench for adjudication.

    On March 15, the excessive courtroom dismissed the petitions filed by a piece 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 lecture rooms, ruling it isn’t part of the important spiritual apply in Islamic religion.

    Several appeals had been filed within the apex courtroom towards the decision.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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 row: Karnataka order on uniform “religion neutral”, says govt; blames PFI for bother 

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Karnataka authorities order that kicked up a row over hijab was “religion-neutral”, the state authorities advised the Supreme Court on Tuesday, launching a robust defence of the state and blaming the PFI for the controversy it claimed was a part of a “larger conspiracy”. 

    Insisting that the agitation in help of sporting hijab in instructional establishments was not a “spontaneous act” by a couple of people, it stated the state authorities would have been “guilty of dereliction of constitutional duty” if it had not acted the way in which it did.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, showing for Karnataka, advised the courtroom the Popular Front of India (PFI) began a marketing campaign on social media which was designed to create an agitation primarily based on “religious feelings of the people”.

    The PFI is broadly seen as a hardline Muslim organisation and has been blamed for a number of incidents of communal violence, scary requires imposing a nationwide ban on it.

    The organisation itself has rejected the allegations.

    Mehta advised a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia that the PFI began the social media marketing campaign over the Islamic headband earlier this yr and there have been steady social media messages asking college students to “start wearing hijab”.

    “In 2022, a movement started on the social media by an organisation called the Popular Front of India and the movement, as an FIR which was lodged subsequently suggested and now culminated into a charge sheet, was designed to create a kind of an agitation based on religious feelings of the people and as a part there were continuous social media messages that start wearing Hijab,” Mehta stated.

    The high courtroom was listening to arguments on a batch of pleas difficult the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to elevate the ban on hijab in instructional establishments of the state.

    “This is not a spontaneous act of few individual children that we want to wear a hijab. They were a part of a larger conspiracy and the children were acting as advised,” Mehta advised the bench.

    He stated till final yr, no woman scholar was sporting hijab in colleges in Karnataka.

    Referring to the state authorities’s February 5, 2022 order, Mehta asserted it is not going to be appropriate to say it prohibits sporting solely hijab and due to this fact targets one faith.

    “There was yet another dimension which no one has dropped at your lordships’ discover.

    I might not be exaggerating if I say that if the federal government wouldn’t have acted the way in which it did, the federal government would have been responsible of dereliction of constitutional obligation,” he stated.

    “I would be able to show to your lordships as to how this problem arose and how the state, as a custodian of constitutional rights of everyone, tried to tackle the problem by order dated February 5, 2022,” Mehta argued, insisting, “It is a religion neutral direction”.

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

    The order was challenged by some Muslim women within the excessive courtroom.

    During the arguments, Mehta stated, when the problem about sporting hijab in colleges got here to the fore, some individuals from one other faith began coming with saffron ‘Gamcha’ (stole), a Hindu non secular image, which can also be prohibited as it’s not part of the varsity uniform.

    He claimed far-fetched arguments have been superior by the counsel showing for the petitioners that the federal government is throttling the voice of the minority.

    “No. The government had to intervene because of the circumstances created,” he stated, referring to the stress the hijab and the saffron stole triggered on some campuses.

    Mehta stated the state had directed instructional establishments and never the scholars about uniform.

    “You are saying that your emphasis was only on uniform?” the bench requested.

    “Yes. We did not touch upon any aspect of religion,” responded Mehta.

    During the arguments, which can proceed on Wednesday, Mehta additionally handled the problem of hijab being a necessary non secular apply in Islam.

    He requested how might hijab be a necessary apply when individuals within the nation the place the faith was born don’t primarily observe it.

    “As a matter of fact, where nations or countries are Islamic countries, women are not wearing hijab. They are fighting against hijab,” Mehta argued.

    “Which country is that?” the bench requested, to which Mehta stated “Iran”.

    Protests have erupted in a number of components of Iran over the dying of a younger lady who was detained for violating the nation’s conservative gown code.

    The morality police had allegedly detained the 22-year-old Mahsa Amini for not overlaying her hair with the Islamic headband, generally known as hijab, which is necessary for Iranian ladies.

    The solicitor common stated the aim of uniform is to make sure no one feels inferior due to someone dressing in a specific method.

    “That is the purpose of uniform. It is for uniformity. It is for equality among all students,” he stated.

    “Discipline means discipline. Here we are not talking about any discipline which inflicts any harm on them,” he stated.

    Observing that college students aren’t saying they won’t put on the uniform, the bench requested a few state of affairs the place a scholar wears a muffler to an academic establishment throughout winter.

    “That (the muffler) does not identify religion,” Mehta stated.

    Summarising his arguments, the solicitor common stated colleges have a statutory energy to prescribe uniform and authorities additionally has statutory energy to difficulty instructions to instructional establishments to make sure compliance with guidelines.

    “It (government’s February 5 order) was a non-arbitrary exercise of power, making it religion-neutral,” he asserted, including the petitioners went to the courtroom claiming hijab is a necessary non secular apply however they may not set up it.

    During the listening to, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, showing for a number of the petitioners, wished to know why the state authorities got here out with such a prohibition 75 years after Independence.

    “What was the need? There is nothing brought on record to show that the circular was supported by any just reason or any justification. It came like a bolt from the blue,” he stated.

    “So, suddenly you decide that you will have this kind of a ban. Why I say so, series of action in Karnataka targeted minority community in last few years,” Dave contended.

    Several pleas have been filed within the high courtroom in opposition to the March 15 verdict of the excessive courtroom holding that sporting hijab is just not part of the important non secular apply which may be protected underneath Article 25 of the Constitution.

    NEW DELHI: The Karnataka authorities order that kicked up a row over hijab was “religion-neutral”, the state authorities advised the Supreme Court on Tuesday, launching a robust defence of the state and blaming the PFI for the controversy it claimed was a part of a “larger conspiracy”. 

    Insisting that the agitation in help of sporting hijab in instructional establishments was not a “spontaneous act” by a couple of people, it stated the state authorities would have been “guilty of dereliction of constitutional duty” if it had not acted the way in which it did.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, showing for Karnataka, advised the courtroom the Popular Front of India (PFI) began a marketing campaign on social media which was designed to create an agitation primarily based on “religious feelings of the people”.

    The PFI is broadly seen as a hardline Muslim organisation and has been blamed for a number of incidents of communal violence, scary requires imposing a nationwide ban on it.

    The organisation itself has rejected the allegations.

    Mehta advised a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia that the PFI began the social media marketing campaign over the Islamic headband earlier this yr and there have been steady social media messages asking college students to “start wearing hijab”.

    “In 2022, a movement started on the social media by an organisation called the Popular Front of India and the movement, as an FIR which was lodged subsequently suggested and now culminated into a charge sheet, was designed to create a kind of an agitation based on religious feelings of the people and as a part there were continuous social media messages that start wearing Hijab,” Mehta stated.

    The high courtroom was listening to arguments on a batch of pleas difficult the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to elevate the ban on hijab in instructional establishments of the state.

    “This is not a spontaneous act of few individual children that we want to wear a hijab. They were a part of a larger conspiracy and the children were acting as advised,” Mehta advised the bench.

    He stated till final yr, no woman scholar was sporting hijab in colleges in Karnataka.

    Referring to the state authorities’s February 5, 2022 order, Mehta asserted it is not going to be appropriate to say it prohibits sporting solely hijab and due to this fact targets one faith.

    “There was yet another dimension which no one has dropped at your lordships’ discover.

    I might not be exaggerating if I say that if the federal government wouldn’t have acted the way in which it did, the federal government would have been responsible of dereliction of constitutional obligation,” he stated.

    “I would be able to show to your lordships as to how this problem arose and how the state, as a custodian of constitutional rights of everyone, tried to tackle the problem by order dated February 5, 2022,” Mehta argued, insisting, “It is a religion neutral direction”.

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

    The order was challenged by some Muslim women within the excessive courtroom.

    During the arguments, Mehta stated, when the problem about sporting hijab in colleges got here to the fore, some individuals from one other faith began coming with saffron ‘Gamcha’ (stole), a Hindu non secular image, which can also be prohibited as it’s not part of the varsity uniform.

    He claimed far-fetched arguments have been superior by the counsel showing for the petitioners that the federal government is throttling the voice of the minority.

    “No. The government had to intervene because of the circumstances created,” he stated, referring to the stress the hijab and the saffron stole triggered on some campuses.

    Mehta stated the state had directed instructional establishments and never the scholars about uniform.

    “You are saying that your emphasis was only on uniform?” the bench requested.

    “Yes. We did not touch upon any aspect of religion,” responded Mehta.

    During the arguments, which can proceed on Wednesday, Mehta additionally handled the problem of hijab being a necessary non secular apply in Islam.

    He requested how might hijab be a necessary apply when individuals within the nation the place the faith was born don’t primarily observe it.

    “As a matter of fact, where nations or countries are Islamic countries, women are not wearing hijab. They are fighting against hijab,” Mehta argued.

    “Which country is that?” the bench requested, to which Mehta stated “Iran”.

    Protests have erupted in a number of components of Iran over the dying of a younger lady who was detained for violating the nation’s conservative gown code.

    The morality police had allegedly detained the 22-year-old Mahsa Amini for not overlaying her hair with the Islamic headband, generally known as hijab, which is necessary for Iranian ladies.

    The solicitor common stated the aim of uniform is to make sure no one feels inferior due to someone dressing in a specific method.

    “That is the purpose of uniform. It is for uniformity. It is for equality among all students,” he stated.

    “Discipline means discipline. Here we are not talking about any discipline which inflicts any harm on them,” he stated.

    Observing that college students aren’t saying they won’t put on the uniform, the bench requested a few state of affairs the place a scholar wears a muffler to an academic establishment throughout winter.

    “That (the muffler) does not identify religion,” Mehta stated.

    Summarising his arguments, the solicitor common stated colleges have a statutory energy to prescribe uniform and authorities additionally has statutory energy to difficulty instructions to instructional establishments to make sure compliance with guidelines.

    “It (government’s February 5 order) was a non-arbitrary exercise of power, making it religion-neutral,” he asserted, including the petitioners went to the courtroom claiming hijab is a necessary non secular apply however they may not set up it.

    During the listening to, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, showing for a number of the petitioners, wished to know why the state authorities got here out with such a prohibition 75 years after Independence.

    “What was the need? There is nothing brought on record to show that the circular was supported by any just reason or any justification. It came like a bolt from the blue,” he stated.

    “So, suddenly you decide that you will have this kind of a ban. Why I say so, series of action in Karnataka targeted minority community in last few years,” Dave contended.

    Several pleas have been filed within the high courtroom in opposition to the March 15 verdict of the excessive courtroom holding that sporting hijab is just not part of the important non secular apply which may be protected underneath Article 25 of the Constitution.

  • “Will right to dress also mean right to undress?” asks SC in Hijab case 

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday requested whether or not proper to decorate may even imply proper to undress after a submission was made within the Karnataka Hijab case that proper to freedom of expression underneath Article 19 of the Constitution consists of alternative of costume.

    The poser by the apex courtroom got here in the course of the listening to of arguments by the lawyer for one of many petitioners difficult the Karnataka High Court verdict declining to raise the state authorities’s ban on Hijab in instructional establishments of the state.

    “You cannot take it to an illogical end,” a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia mentioned when a earlier judgement of the apex courtroom was cited by senior advocate Devadatt Kamat and an argument raised concerning Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution and the liberty to decorate.

    When the bench requested “Will right to dress mean right to undress also?,” Kamat responded to say “no one is undressing in class.

    Kamat referred to the Karnataka authorities’s order of February 5, 2022, by which it had banned carrying garments that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in faculties and schools and claimed it’s focusing on just one group.

    The order was challenged within the excessive courtroom by some Muslim woman college students.

    “It may not be right. Because one community wants to come with a headscarf. Another community is following the dress code,” the bench noticed. Kamat, who additionally referred to “positive secularism”, mentioned the state should train cheap lodging. “Your lordships have accepted the concept of positive secularism.”

    Referring to a earlier judgement of the apex courtroom, Kamat argued that secularism doesn’t imply that college students of just one religion is not going to show their non secular id.

    The courtroom additionally made it clear that the query within the Karnataka Hijab ban matter is just concerning the restriction in faculties as no one is prohibited from carrying it wherever else they need.

    The bench was advised that the matter be referred to a five-judge structure bench.

    Kamat argued that if a lady, within the train of her rights underneath Articles 19, 21, or 25 of the Constitution, decides to put on a Hijab, then can the State put a prohibition that may violate her rights.

    The bench orally noticed, “The question is nobody is prohibiting you from wearing Hijab. You can wear it wherever you want. The only restriction is in the school. We are only concerned with that question.”

    At the outset, Kamat mentioned his endeavour is to influence the bench to contemplate reference of this matter underneath Article 145 (3) of the Constitution.

    Article 145 (3) says the minimal variety of judges, who’re to sit down for the aim of deciding any case involving a considerable query of legislation as to the interpretation of the Constitution or for the aim of listening to any reference underneath Article 143, shall be 5.

    The senior advocate argued that the bench needs to be happy that it is a case that requires a reference underneath Article 145 (3).

    “I endeavour to persuade your lordships to take this course of action,” he mentioned, including this isn’t a matter which is solely associated to a violation of a statute, or a rule.

    “This case involves primarily a basic question as to whether the State has failed in its obligation to provide for reasonable accommodation, which is a Constitutional principle adopted by your lordships, for the exercise of a citizens’ rights under Articles 19, 21, and 25,” Kamat mentioned, including that the petitioner just isn’t difficult the prescription of uniform within the faculty.

    While Article 19 offers with the safety of sure rights concerning freedom of speech and many others, Article 21 pertains to the safety of life and private liberty.

    Article 25 of the Constitution offers with freedom of conscience and free occupation, follow, and propagation of faith.

    During the arguments, Kamat referred to a round of the Kendriya Vidyalaya and mentioned it prescribes a uniform and makes an inexpensive lodging for Muslim ladies to put on a headband. He additionally referred to a judgement of the constitutional courtroom of South Africa within the case of a lady who needed to put on a nostril ring in class.

    “Whatever little I know, nose pin is not part of any religious practice,” Justice Gupta mentioned, including, “Mangalsutra is, but not the nose ring”.

    The bench noticed that all around the world, girls put on earrings and it isn’t a case of non secular follow. “My impression is, no other country has this kind of a diversification as in our country,” Justice Gupta mentioned. When Kamat referred to judgements from the US, the bench requested, “How could we compare USA and Canada with our country?” “We are very conservative,” mentioned the bench, including these judgements are given within the context of their society.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday requested whether or not proper to decorate may even imply proper to undress after a submission was made within the Karnataka Hijab case that proper to freedom of expression underneath Article 19 of the Constitution consists of alternative of costume.

    The poser by the apex courtroom got here in the course of the listening to of arguments by the lawyer for one of many petitioners difficult the Karnataka High Court verdict declining to raise the state authorities’s ban on Hijab in instructional establishments of the state.

    “You cannot take it to an illogical end,” a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia mentioned when a earlier judgement of the apex courtroom was cited by senior advocate Devadatt Kamat and an argument raised concerning Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution and the liberty to decorate.

    When the bench requested “Will right to dress mean right to undress also?,” Kamat responded to say “no one is undressing in class.

    Kamat referred to the Karnataka authorities’s order of February 5, 2022, by which it had banned carrying garments that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in faculties and schools and claimed it’s focusing on just one group.

    The order was challenged within the excessive courtroom by some Muslim woman college students.

    “It may not be right. Because one community wants to come with a headscarf. Another community is following the dress code,” the bench noticed. Kamat, who additionally referred to “positive secularism”, mentioned the state should train cheap lodging. “Your lordships have accepted the concept of positive secularism.”

    Referring to a earlier judgement of the apex courtroom, Kamat argued that secularism doesn’t imply that college students of just one religion is not going to show their non secular id.

    The courtroom additionally made it clear that the query within the Karnataka Hijab ban matter is just concerning the restriction in faculties as no one is prohibited from carrying it wherever else they need.

    The bench was advised that the matter be referred to a five-judge structure bench.

    Kamat argued that if a lady, within the train of her rights underneath Articles 19, 21, or 25 of the Constitution, decides to put on a Hijab, then can the State put a prohibition that may violate her rights.

    The bench orally noticed, “The question is nobody is prohibiting you from wearing Hijab. You can wear it wherever you want. The only restriction is in the school. We are only concerned with that question.”

    At the outset, Kamat mentioned his endeavour is to influence the bench to contemplate reference of this matter underneath Article 145 (3) of the Constitution.

    Article 145 (3) says the minimal variety of judges, who’re to sit down for the aim of deciding any case involving a considerable query of legislation as to the interpretation of the Constitution or for the aim of listening to any reference underneath Article 143, shall be 5.

    The senior advocate argued that the bench needs to be happy that it is a case that requires a reference underneath Article 145 (3).

    “I endeavour to persuade your lordships to take this course of action,” he mentioned, including this isn’t a matter which is solely associated to a violation of a statute, or a rule.

    “This case involves primarily a basic question as to whether the State has failed in its obligation to provide for reasonable accommodation, which is a Constitutional principle adopted by your lordships, for the exercise of a citizens’ rights under Articles 19, 21, and 25,” Kamat mentioned, including that the petitioner just isn’t difficult the prescription of uniform within the faculty.

    While Article 19 offers with the safety of sure rights concerning freedom of speech and many others, Article 21 pertains to the safety of life and private liberty.

    Article 25 of the Constitution offers with freedom of conscience and free occupation, follow, and propagation of faith.

    During the arguments, Kamat referred to a round of the Kendriya Vidyalaya and mentioned it prescribes a uniform and makes an inexpensive lodging for Muslim ladies to put on a headband. He additionally referred to a judgement of the constitutional courtroom of South Africa within the case of a lady who needed to put on a nostril ring in class.

    “Whatever little I know, nose pin is not part of any religious practice,” Justice Gupta mentioned, including, “Mangalsutra is, but not the nose ring”.

    The bench noticed that all around the world, girls put on earrings and it isn’t a case of non secular follow. “My impression is, no other country has this kind of a diversification as in our country,” Justice Gupta mentioned. When Kamat referred to judgements from the US, the bench requested, “How could we compare USA and Canada with our country?” “We are very conservative,” mentioned the bench, including these judgements are given within the context of their society.

  • Hijab ban: Supreme Court to listen to pleas towards Karnataka HC ruling after Holi trip

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to listing for listening to after Holi trip the pleas difficult the Karnataka High Court verdict which dismissed the petitions looking for permission to put on hijab contained in the classroom saying it’s not part of the important spiritual observe in Islamic religion.

    A bench comprising Chief Justice NV Ramana took word of the submissions of senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, showing for some college students, that pressing listening to was wanted preserving in thoughts the upcoming examinations.

    “The urgency is that there are many girls who have to appear in examinations,” the senior lawyer advised the bench which additionally comprised Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli. “Others also mentioned, let us see…we will list after the vacations. Give us time,” the CJI mentioned.

    Some petitions have been filed towards the total bench excessive courtroom verdict on the case by which it was held that carrying hijab just isn’t part of important spiritual observe in Islamic religion below Article 25 of the structure.

    The excessive courtroom dismissed the petitions filed by a bit of Muslim college students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, looking for permission to put on Hijab contained in the classroom. The prescription of faculty uniform is barely an inexpensive restriction, constitutionally permissible which the scholars can’t object to, the excessive courtroom mentioned.

  • Everybody ought to welcome Karnataka HC’s judgement on hijab: Rajnath

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Tuesday mentioned the Karnataka High Court’s judgement backing a ban on sporting of hijabs in academic establishments must be welcomed by everyone.

    In an tackle at an occasion, Singh mentioned no nation or society can develop if it doesn’t respect ladies.

    “I can say very confidently that there cannot be development of a society or a country if there is no respect for women. India’s approach towards women has traditionally been positive and progressive,” he mentioned.

    “Today you have seen that the Karnataka High Court has given a judgement. I think everybody should welcome it,” he mentioned.

    Singh was talking on the occasion organised by the FICCI Ladies Organisation (FLO). The defence minister mentioned the gown code of faculties and schools have to be adopted by everybody of each faith.

    Referring to the judgement, he mentioned the courtroom held that India’s daughters could also be from any faith or area, however no restriction on them is suitable.

    “If there is a ‘dress code’ of a school and college, then anyone from irrespective of religion and faith should follow the dress code. And the court has given its judgement corresponding to this,” Singh mentioned.

    The defence minister additionally mentioned that the federal government has taken numerous steps to strengthen the position of ladies within the armed forces. “The armed forces will see a larger participation of women in the coming years due to the recent steps taken by the government,” he mentioned.

    “Today, women are not only working in the Army in every wing, but now we are also giving permanent commission to them. Today, admission is being given to boys as well as girls in every Sainik School. The doors of NDA (National Defence Academy) have also been opened for women,” he mentioned.

    Singh mentioned that about 200,000 ladies took the doorway examination final yr for entry into the NDA with nice enthusiasm. “The percentage of women in the Indian Army will increase significantly in the coming times,” mentioned Singh.

    The defence minister additionally highlighted numerous schemes rolled out by the federal government in the previous couple of years on ability growth, employment era and entrepreneurship. He mentioned these schemes have paved the way in which for the holistic growth of ladies and given them the arrogance to forge a brand new identification.

    Singh made particular point out of 23-year-old Vinita Singh who left a wage bundle of Rs one crore and launched her personal startup, which has now turn out to be a Rs 300 crore firm.

    He mentioned this inspiring story has been made attainable because of the coverage introduced out by the federal government to advertise startups within the nation. “In 2014, only 500 startups were working in the country. By 2022, this count has crossed 60,000,” he added.

    Singh reiterated the federal government’s dedication to selling ladies entrepreneurship in India, saying that in accordance with a research, if obstacles in the way in which of ladies are eliminated, at the least 1.5 crore new companies could be began, creating about 6.4 crore further jobs, in accordance with a defence ministry assertion.

    He added that this ecosystem of ladies entrepreneurship will encourage extra ladies and new companies will emerge. At the occasion, wealthy tributes had been paid to Bharat Ratna Late Lata Mangeshkar. Singh remembered the Nightingale of India, saying that she is going to all the time be alive within the coronary heart of each Indian.

    FLO president Ujjwala Singhania and different members of the organisation had been additionally current.

  • Hijab ban: Plea moved in SC difficult Karnataka High Court verdict

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: A particular depart petition has been filed within the Supreme court docket by a Udupi scholar towards the Karnataka High Court court docket order that dominated that carrying of hijab by Muslim ladies is just not a vital spiritual apply within the Islamic religion and prescribing uniform is just not a violation of elementary rights assured beneath Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of the Constitution.

    ALSO READ | Hijab row: Udupi Muslim ladies say they won’t go to school with out hijab and battle it legally

    The plea states that the excessive court docket has failed to notice that the precise to put on a Hijab comes beneath the ambit of ‘expression’ and is thus protected beneath Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

    “… High Court has failed to notice that the precise to put on a Hijab is protected as part of the precise to conscience beneath Article 25 of the Constitution. It is submitted that because the proper to conscience is basically a person proper, the ‘Essential Religious Practices Test’ ought to not have been utilized by the Hon’ble High Court on this instantaneous case,” the plea reads.

    It has been mentioned within the plea that the excessive court docket has failed to notice that the Indian authorized system explicitly acknowledges the carrying/carrying of spiritual symbols.

    ALSO READ | Hope makes an attempt to push Muslim ladies into 4 partitions of home fail, says Kerala Guv welcoming Hijab verdict

    “…It is pertinent to note that Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from wearing a helmet. Order IX, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules makes a special provision for affidavits that are to be sworn by pardanashin women…” It added.

    Upholding the federal government order dated February 5, 2022, banning the hijab in lecture rooms, a full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justices Krishna S Dixit, and Justice JM Khazi pronounced the decision on a cluster of petitions questioning the order handed by the state authorities banning the carrying of hijab in lecture rooms.

  • Hijab ban in classroom: Plea in SC challenges Karnataka HC verdict

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: A plea was filed within the Supreme Court on Tuesday difficult the Karnataka High Court verdict which dismissed the petitions in search of permission to put on Hijab contained in the classroom saying Hijab shouldn’t be part of the important spiritual apply in Islamic religion.

    The petition has been filed within the apex court docket by a Muslim pupil who was one of many petitioners earlier than the excessive court docket.

    Earlier within the day, the excessive court docket dismissed the petitions filed by a piece of Muslim college students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, in search of permission to put on Hijab contained in the classroom.

    The prescription of college uniform is barely an affordable restriction, constitutionally permissible which the scholars can’t object to, the excessive court docket mentioned.

    In the plea filed within the prime court docket, the petitioner has mentioned the excessive court docket has “erred in creating a dichotomy of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience wherein the court has inferred that those who follow a religion cannot have the right to conscience.”

    “The high court has failed to note that the right to wear a Hijab comes under the ambit of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the freedom of conscience forms a part of the right to privacy,” it mentioned.

    The plea mentioned the petitioner had approached the excessive court docket in search of redressal for the alleged violation of their elementary rights towards the state authorities order of February 5, 2022 issued beneath Sections 7 and 133 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.

    “The impugned government order directed the college development committees all over the state of Karnataka to prescribe a ‘student uniform’ that mandated the students to wear the official uniform and in absence of any designated uniform the students were mandated to wear an uniform that was in the essence of unity, equality and public order,” it mentioned.

    The plea mentioned the excessive court docket failed to notice that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the foundations made thereunder don’t present for any obligatory uniform to be worn by college students.

    “The petitioner submits that the high court has failed to note that there does not exist any provision in law which prescribes any punishment for students for not wearing uniforms. Even if one were to presume that there existed a mandate to wear a particular uniform, there is no punishment prescribed in case a student does not wear the uniform,” it mentioned.

    The petition mentioned neither the Act nor the Rules prescribe any uniform for college students or prohibit the carrying of a Hijab.

    “The high court has failed to note that the right to wear a Hijab comes under the ambit of ‘expression’ and is thus protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,” it mentioned.

    The plea claimed that the excessive court docket has failed to notice that proper to put on a Hijab is protected as part of the proper to conscience beneath Article 25 of the Constitution.

    It mentioned for the reason that proper to conscience is actually a person proper, the ‘Essential Religious Practices Test’ ought to not have been utilized by the excessive court docket within the case.

    “Assuming the ‘Essential Religious Practices Test’ does apply, the high court has failed to note that wearing of Hijab or headscarf is a practice that is essential to the practice of Islam,” the petition mentioned. It claimed that the excessive court docket has failed to notice that Indian authorized system explicitly recognises the carrying/carrying of non secular symbols.

    The plea mentioned Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, exempts turban carrying Sikhs from carrying a helmet and beneath the foundations made by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Sikhs are allowed to hold kirpans onto plane.

    “This public order was passed with an indirect intent of attacking the religious minorities and specifically the followers of Islamic faith by ridiculing the female Muslim students wearing Hijab. This ridiculing attack was under the guise of attaining secularity and equality on the basis of uniform wherein the college development committees prohibited the students wearing Hijab from entering the premises of the educational institutions,” it mentioned.

    “This step-motherly behaviour of government authorities has prevented students from practising their faith which has resulted in an unwanted law and order situation,” the plea mentioned.

    Meanwhile, a caveat has additionally been filed within the apex court docket by one other individual, who was a celebration earlier than the excessive court docket, in search of to be heard earlier than any order is handed within the matter.

    The excessive court docket maintained that the federal government has energy to difficulty impugned order dated February 5, 2022 and no case is made out for its invalidation.

    By the mentioned order, the Karnataka authorities had banned carrying garments which disturb equality, integrity and public order in colleges and faculties, which the Muslim ladies had challenged within the excessive court docket.

    Challenging the February 5 order of the federal government, the petitioners had argued earlier than the excessive court docket that carrying the Islamic headband was an harmless apply of religion and an Essential Religious Practice (ERP), and never a mere show of non secular jingoism.

    The petitioners had additionally contended that the restriction violated the liberty of expression beneath Article 19(1)(A) and article 21 coping with private liberty.