The Supreme Court rejected to set a date for hearing a case challenging a Karnataka High Court judgement that dismissed all applications seeking permission to wear a hijab in school.
Senior counsel Devadutt Kamat highlighted one of the cases on behalf of a petitioner, a Muslim lady student, and requested that the subject be listed urgently. Kamat stressed that exams were approaching and wanted the court to hold a hearing on the subject as soon as possible.
According to a court led by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, this has nothing to do with the exams. The Chief Justice warned Kamat not to make a big deal out of the situation.
Kamat claimed that the girl pupils were not permitted to join the schools and that they would be expelled for a year. The bench, however, went on to the next thing.
On March 16, the Supreme Court declined to grant an urgent hearing on a petition challenging a Karnataka High Court ruling holding that the wearing of hijab by Muslim women does not constitute an essential religious practise in the Islamic religion.
ALSO READ: Graffiti Surfaces in Karnataka Town Against Hijab Verdict
The petitioners were then represented by senior attorney Sanjay Hedge before a bench led by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana. Hedge stated that there is a sense of urgency in the subject because numerous ladies have examinations coming up. According to the bench, others have also addressed the concern, and the court will look into it.
Hedge had claimed that the examinations had begun and that there was a sense of urgency in the matter.
The bench stated that it required more time and that the subject will be scheduled for the hearing. Following brief remarks, the bench stated that it may be scheduled after the Holi vacation. Give us some time, and we’ll post the matter, the bench stated.
According to the petition submitted by Adeel Ahmed and Rahamathullah Kothwal, the high court order creates an unjustifiable distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim female students, and so is in direct contravention of the notion of secularism, which forms the foundation of the Indian Constitution. Mohamed Arif Jameel and others are among the petitioners.
According to the petition, the impugned order is also in clear contravention of Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, and 25 of the Indian Constitution, as well as the essential principles of the International Conventions to which India is a signatory.
Being aggrieved by the impugned Government Order, as it is in violation of the Indian constitution, the petitioner sought the Hon’ble High Court through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the validity of the same, it went on to say. In the challenged judgement, the Hon’ble High Court sought to curb the fundamental right of Muslim student-women by upholding the impugned Government Order, which prohibits Muslim women from wearing the hijab and pursuing their education. It is accordingly claimed that the right to wear a hijab is an essential religious practice and thus falls within the scope of the right to expression granted by Article 19 (1) (a), the right to privacy, and the right to freedom of conscience protected by Article 25 of the Constitution.
The same cannot be violated in the absence of a legal ‘law.’
Another petition, filed by two Muslim students, Manan and Niba Naaz, through advocate Anas Tanwir, stated: The petitioners most humbly submit that the High Court erred in creating a dichotomy of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, inferring that those who follow a religion cannot have the right to conscience.
(This story has been sourced from a third-party syndicated feed, agencies. Raavi Media accepts no responsibility or liability for the dependability, trustworthiness, reliability, and data of the text. Raavi Media management/ythisnews.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content at its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever.)
