On Wednesday, the Apex Court agreed to list for hearing after Holi vacation the petitions challenging the Karnataka HC verdict which dismissed the pleas seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom saying it is not part of the essential religious practice in the Islamic faith.

A bench headed by CJI N V Ramana took note of the submissions of Senior Lawyer Sanjay Hegde, appearing for some students, that urgent hearing was needed keeping in mind the upcoming examinations.

“The urgency is that there are many girls who have to appear in examinations,” the Senior Advocate told the bench which also comprised Justice A S Bopanna & Justice Hima Kohli.

CJI Ramana said that “Others also mentioned, let us see...we will list after the vacations. Give us time".

Some pleas have been filed against the full bench high court verdict on the case in which it was held that wearing hijab is not a part of essential religious practice in Islamic faith under Article 25 of the Constitution. The high court dismissed the petitions filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, seeking permission to wear Hijab inside the classroom.

The prescription of school uniform is only a reasonable restriction, constitutionally permissible which the students cannot object to, the high court said. In one of the pleas filed in the top court, the petitioner said the high court has “erred in creating a dichotomy of freedom of religion & freedom of conscience wherein the court has inferred that those who follow a religion cannot have the right to conscience.”

It said that “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".

The plea said the petitioner had approached the HC seeking redressal for the alleged violation of their fundamental rights against the State Govt order of Feb 5, 2022, issued under Sections 7 & 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 & in absence of any designated uniform the students were mandated to wear an uniform that was in the essence of unity, equality & public order,” it said.

The plea said the HC failed to note that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 & the rules made thereunder do not provide for any mandatory uniform to be worn by students.

The plea alleged that the HC has failed to note that right to wear a Hijab is protected as a part of the right to conscience under Article 25 of the Constitution.

It said since the right to conscience is essentially an individual right, the ‘Essential Religious Practices Test' ought not to have been applied by the high court in 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 plea said.

It alleged that the HC has failed to note that the Indian legal system explicitly recognises the wearing/carrying of religious symbols.

The plea said Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from wearing a helmet & under the rules made by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Sikhs are allowed to carry kirpans onto aircraft.

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

The plea said that “This step-motherly behaviour of government authorities has prevented students from practising their faith which has resulted in an unwanted law & order situation".

Meanwhile, a caveat has also been filed in the Supreme Court by another person, who was a party before the HC, seeking to be heard before any order is passed in the matter.

The HC maintained that the Govt has the power to issue impugned order dated Feb 5, 2022, & no case is made out for its invalidation.

By the said order, the Govt of Karnataka had banned wearing clothes that disturb equality, integrity & public order in schools & colleges, which the Muslim girls had challenged in the HC.

Challenging the Feb 5 order of the Govt, the petitioners had argued before the HC that wearing the Islamic headscarf was an innocent practice of faith & an Essential Religious Practice (ERP), & not a mere display of religious jingoism.

The petitioners had also contended that the restriction violated the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(A) & article 21 dealing with personal liberty.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Source Link

Picture Source :