The high court’s three-judge panel concluded that requiring students to wear a school uniform is just a fair limitation The hijab is not a required aspect of Islam, according to the Karnataka High Court.
BENGALURU: The Karnataka high court decided on Tuesday that the hijab is not an integral element of Islam, thereby reinforcing the state government’s ban on Muslim girls and women wearing the head scarf at educational institutions.
The three-judge bench of chief justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, justice Krishna S Dixit, and justice JM Khazi stated they formed a few questions and answered them after taking a holistic perspective of the case.
The issues raised were whether wearing hijab is an essential religious practice under the Islamic faith protected under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution; whether the requirement of school uniform violates students’ rights under articles 19 (A) (freedom of expression) and 21 (right to privacy); and whether the government order dated February 5 was “issued without application of mind with manifestly arbitrary results.”
“We are of the considered judgment that wearing a headscarf by Muslim women does not constitute part of the core religious practice in the Islamic religion,” chief judge Awasthi stated as he read the ruling. The answer to the second issue is that we believe that requiring children to wear a school uniform is only a reasonable, legally authorized limitation to which they cannot disagree. The government has the authority to make an order, and there is no reason The hijab is not a required aspect of Islam, according to the Karnataka High Court. to believe it would be invalidated.”
Students at the disputed Udupi institution will challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court, according to Anas Tanwir, a Supreme Court lawyer. “In Udupi, I met with my Hijab client. Insha Allah, I’ll be moving to South Carolina shortly. In the name of Allah, these young women will complete their studies while exercising their right to wear the hijab. “These girl have not given up faith in the court or the Constitutions,” he said in a tweets.
“I applaud the historic judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court on School/College uniform Rules,” Karnataka education minister BC Nagesh tweeted. It was re-iterated that the law of the country is supreme.
The bench, which was formed on February 9, has been hearing a batch of petitions submitted by some females requesting permission to wear hijab at educational institutions on a day-to-day basis for the last two weeks. On December 28, the girls were refused admission to a pre-university government institution for females in Udupi due to their headscarves, which sparked the discussion.
What started with two colleges in the coastal regions of Udupi and Mangaluru turned into a countrywide controversy last month when other institutions imposed hijab bans. While isolated clashes broke out in Shivamogga, Hindu groups mobilized groups of men wearing saffron shawls to oppose the entry of women in hijab into schools and colleges, forcing the states governments to issue a controversial orders on February 5 that said student will not be allowed to attend classes wearing hijab.
The high court issued an interim ruling on February 10 stating that pupils should not wear religious clothing to class until the hearing is completed. It reiterated the ruling on February 23, stating that it applies to all degree and PU schools with a dress code.
The discussion brought to a close court processes that had piqued the nation’s curiosity over the previous several weeks. The case’s arguments, which have become essential to a wider discussion over religious identity in educational institutions and the state’s treatment of minorities, were mostly focused on Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
Read This best Post 👉 Download full hd movie rrr hindi dubbed
During the hearing, the female students contended that wearing hijab is an important religious practice in Islam, and that suspending it, even for a few hours during the school day, weakens the community’s religion and infringes their constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 25.
Lawyer Devdatt Kamat, who spoke on behalf of the petitioners, referenced many judgments from other nations, including South Africa and Canada, to illustrate his argument, as well as the case of Sonali Pillai, who went to courts to protests her school rule prohibiting her from wearing a nose ring. Pillai, according to Kamat, won the lawsuits in South Africa.
Kamat, who is seeking the freedom to wear the traditional headscarf, claims that it is a harmless religious ritual and not a show of religious jingoism.
Senior counsel Ravi Varma Kumar said that the prejudice against Muslim girls is solely based on religion, claiming that Hindu girls wearing bangles and Christian girls wearing crosses were not expelled from schools. The petitioners argued that the hijab is an important element of Islam, and that public order would not be disrupted just because a Muslim girl wears it.
The state administration, on the other hand, said that the petitioners wanted to designate the hijab a “essential religious practice,” requiring every Muslim woman to adhere to a strict clothing code. Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi went on to say that the petitioners failed to put any evidence on the record to support their argument that wearing a hijab is a religious requirement.