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

Report Wire

News at Another Perspective

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

4 min read
Karnataka hijab ban: 'G.O. restraining students to wear headscarves illegal', argue 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.