new Delhi: Supreme court Agreed to list for hearing later on Wednesday Holi Arguments challenging leave Karnataka High Court Judgment which dismissed petitions seeking permission to wear the hijab inside the classroom, saying it was not a part of the religious practice required in the Islamic faith.
Bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana took cognizance of the arguments of senior advocate Sanjay HegdeAppeared for some students, that in view of the upcoming examinations there is a need for urgent hearing.
“The urgency is that there are many girls who have to appear in the examinations,” the senior counsel told the bench. Hima Kohli,
“As others also mentioned, let’s see… we will list after the holidays. Give us time,” the CJI said.
Some petitions have been filed against the High Court’s full bench decision on the matter which held that wearing the hijab is not a part of the religious practice required in the Islamic faith under Article 25 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed petitions filed by a section of Muslim students of Government Pre-University Girls College, Udupi, seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom.
The High Court held that the fixation of school uniforms is only a reasonable restriction, constitutionally permissible, to which students cannot object. In a petition filed in the apex court, the petitioner said that the High Court has “erred in creating a dichotomy of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, in which the court has concluded that those who practice religion have no sense of conscience”. can’t be right.”
“The High Court has failed to note that the right to wear the hijab falls within the purview of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that freedom of conscience is a part of right to privacy,” it said.
The petition states that the petitioner had approached the High Court for redressal of the alleged violation of his fundamental rights against the order of the State Government of February 5, 2022, issued under sections 7 and 133 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.
“The government order imposed directed the College Development Committees across the state of Karnataka to prescribe a ‘Student Uniform’ wherein it was mandatory for the students to wear an official uniform and in the absence of any specified uniform, the students were required to wear a uniform. The essence of unity, equality and public order,” it said.
The petition said that the High Court failed to note that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the rules made thereunder do not provide for any compulsory uniform to be worn by the students.
The petition claimed that the High Court has failed to note that the right to wear the hijab is protected under the right of conscience under Article 25 of the Constitution.
It said that since the right of conscience is essentially an individual right, the ‘essential religious practice test’ should not have been invoked by the High Court in the case.
“While observing that the ‘essential religious practice test’ applies, the High Court has failed to note that wearing a hijab or scarf is a practice which is essential for the practice of Islam,” the petition said.
It claimed that the High Court has failed to note that the Indian legal system explicitly recognizes the wearing/carrying of religious symbols.
The petition states that section 129 motor vehicle act1988, exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from wearing helmets and under the rules made by ministry of civil aviationSikhs are allowed to carry kirpans in the aircraft.
“This public order was passed with the ulterior intention of attacking religious minorities and especially followers of Islamic faith by ridiculing female Muslim students wearing hijab. This derisive attack was in the guise of achieving secularism and equality on the basis of uniform, wherein college development committees barred students wearing hijab from entering the premises of educational institutions,” it said.
“This step-motherly treatment of government officials has prevented the students from practicing their faith, resulting in unwanted law and order situation,” the petition said.
Meanwhile, a caveat has also been filed in the apex court by another person, who was a party before the high court for hearing before any order was passed in the matter.
The High Court held that the government has the power to issue the impugned order on February 5, 2022 and no case is made out for its invalidity.
By the said order, the Karnataka government had banned the wearing of clothes that disturbed equality, integrity and public order in schools and colleges, which was challenged in the High Court by Muslim girls.
Challenging the government’s February 5 order, the petitioners had argued before the high court that wearing Islamic headscarfs was an innocent practice of faith and an essential religious practice (ERP), and not merely a display of religious bigotry.
The petitioners had also argued that the restriction violated the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 relating to personal liberty.
Bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana took cognizance of the arguments of senior advocate Sanjay HegdeAppeared for some students, that in view of the upcoming examinations there is a need for urgent hearing.
“The urgency is that there are many girls who have to appear in the examinations,” the senior counsel told the bench. Hima Kohli,
“As others also mentioned, let’s see… we will list after the holidays. Give us time,” the CJI said.
Some petitions have been filed against the High Court’s full bench decision on the matter which held that wearing the hijab is not a part of the religious practice required in the Islamic faith under Article 25 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed petitions filed by a section of Muslim students of Government Pre-University Girls College, Udupi, seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom.
The High Court held that the fixation of school uniforms is only a reasonable restriction, constitutionally permissible, to which students cannot object. In a petition filed in the apex court, the petitioner said that the High Court has “erred in creating a dichotomy of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, in which the court has concluded that those who practice religion have no sense of conscience”. can’t be right.”
“The High Court has failed to note that the right to wear the hijab falls within the purview of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that freedom of conscience is a part of right to privacy,” it said.
The petition states that the petitioner had approached the High Court for redressal of the alleged violation of his fundamental rights against the order of the State Government of February 5, 2022, issued under sections 7 and 133 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.
“The government order imposed directed the College Development Committees across the state of Karnataka to prescribe a ‘Student Uniform’ wherein it was mandatory for the students to wear an official uniform and in the absence of any specified uniform, the students were required to wear a uniform. The essence of unity, equality and public order,” it said.
The petition said that the High Court failed to note that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the rules made thereunder do not provide for any compulsory uniform to be worn by the students.
The petition claimed that the High Court has failed to note that the right to wear the hijab is protected under the right of conscience under Article 25 of the Constitution.
It said that since the right of conscience is essentially an individual right, the ‘essential religious practice test’ should not have been invoked by the High Court in the case.
“While observing that the ‘essential religious practice test’ applies, the High Court has failed to note that wearing a hijab or scarf is a practice which is essential for the practice of Islam,” the petition said.
It claimed that the High Court has failed to note that the Indian legal system explicitly recognizes the wearing/carrying of religious symbols.
The petition states that section 129 motor vehicle act1988, exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from wearing helmets and under the rules made by ministry of civil aviationSikhs are allowed to carry kirpans in the aircraft.
“This public order was passed with the ulterior intention of attacking religious minorities and especially followers of Islamic faith by ridiculing female Muslim students wearing hijab. This derisive attack was in the guise of achieving secularism and equality on the basis of uniform, wherein college development committees barred students wearing hijab from entering the premises of educational institutions,” it said.
“This step-motherly treatment of government officials has prevented the students from practicing their faith, resulting in unwanted law and order situation,” the petition said.
Meanwhile, a caveat has also been filed in the apex court by another person, who was a party before the high court for hearing before any order was passed in the matter.
The High Court held that the government has the power to issue the impugned order on February 5, 2022 and no case is made out for its invalidity.
By the said order, the Karnataka government had banned the wearing of clothes that disturbed equality, integrity and public order in schools and colleges, which was challenged in the High Court by Muslim girls.
Challenging the government’s February 5 order, the petitioners had argued before the high court that wearing Islamic headscarfs was an innocent practice of faith and an essential religious practice (ERP), and not merely a display of religious bigotry.
The petitioners had also argued that the restriction violated the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 relating to personal liberty.