Chikmagalur: Muslim students wearing burqa protest against the Karnataka High Court’s decision on hijab by boycotting their internal exams in front of IDSG College, in Chikmagalur, on Wednesday, March 16, 2022.
Highlight
- The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has moved the Supreme Court.
- The board is challenging the Karnataka High Court’s decision on the hijab ban in the state.
- The board has moved the apex court along with two other petitioners.
All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has moved the Supreme Court Karnataka High Court verdictwhich upheld the ban on the hijab in classrooms, recognizing that the wearing of head scarves by Muslim women was not a necessary religious practice.
The board has moved the apex court along with two other petitioners Munisa Bushra and Jalisa Sultana Yasin. The petition states that the High Court’s decision, while dismissing the petitions, has proceeded for wrong reasons to settle the issue.
The petition states: “This is a case of direct discrimination against Muslim girls. The High Court has made a distinction between the different contextual meaning (as a matter of discipline) in the case of Bijo Emmanuel and the principles laid down on the other.” Hands, the practice of the hijab, is reflected as if it were a matter of troubling the entire uniform, that too when this minor change (head covering like that of a Sikh) was introduced as part of religious practices under the constitutional norm. can be adjusted appropriately.
The petition argued that placing too much emphasis on bringing “uniformity” in uniform to a person of a religion ‘to cover his hair with a piece of cloth’ is a mockery of justice, and the judgment also ignores the principle of reasonable accommodation. Is .
The petition states: “The determination of essentiality under the principles of essential religious practice (ERP) began with the consideration of the determination of essential religious practice according to which rites and the principles of the religion required ceremonies.”
The petition states that while dealing with the issue of protection of fundamental rights, the High Court judgment has completely misinterpreted the concept of sensible difference.
The plea said that by grouping all the students in uniformity without accepting that such interpretation is not only against the prevailing practices in different parts of the country, but such accommodation is generally available to different group of students. . “This is completely irrational and against the objective of maintaining diversity as enunciated in the Constitution of India,” it said.
Several petitions have been filed in the apex court challenging the High Court’s decision.
On March 24, the Supreme Court refused to give any specific date for hearing a petition challenging the order of the Karnataka High Court, which dismissed all petitions seeking permission to wear the hijab in classrooms.
Another petition, filed through advocates Adil Ahmed and Rahmatullah Kothwal, contended that the High Court order creates an unfair classification between non-Muslim female students and Muslim female students and thus is a direct violation of the concept of secularism which prevails in Indian society. forms the basic structure. Constitution. The petitioners are Mohammad Arif Jameel and others.
The petition said: “The impugned order is also violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution and also violates the fundamental principles of international conventions to which India is a signatory.”
It further said, “Being aggrieved by the impugned Government order, as it is violative of the Constitution of India, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble High Court through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the validity of the same.”
Read also: MP University orders probe after right-wing activists submit video of hijab-clad girl offering prayers