Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia will hear a batch of petitions challenging the ban on wearing Hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka.A batch of 23 petitions is listed before the bench. Some of them are writ petitions filed directly before the Supreme Court seeking the right to wear hijab for Muslim girl students. Some others are special...
Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia will hear a batch of petitions challenging the ban on wearing Hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka.
A batch of 23 petitions is listed before the bench. Some of them are writ petitions filed directly before the Supreme Court seeking the right to wear hijab for Muslim girl students. Some others are special leave petitions which challenge the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated March 15 which upheld the hijab ban.
The SLPs have been filed against the judgment dated March 15 passed DAY 6by the High Court of Karnataka, upholding Government Order dated 05.02.2022, which has effectively prohibited Petitioners, and other such female Muslim students from wearing the headscarf in their Pre-University Colleges. A Full Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna Dixit and Justice JM Khazi held that wearing of hijab by women was not an essential religious practice of Islam. The Bench further held the prescription of uniform dress code in educational institutions was not violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners.
FOLLOW LIVE UPDATES OF TODAY'S HEARING HERE:
Bench requests Venkataramani to give a summary note of his arguments.
Venkataramani : In this case, is there an intent to discriminate. The answer is No. That's what the State has said.
Venktaramani : So once it is under Article 25, then you have to show a justification to travel beyond that right. To claim Art 19, you have to show something beyond what the Quran says.
Venktaramani : So it is all about religion, nothing but religion. If it is not conscience, then it is religion. Sometimes there could be overlapping depending on the fact situation.
Venkataramani : Wearing a band against Vietnam war. That is a conscientious objections. Conscience is about ethical dispositions. In a matter like hijab, there is no conscience element.
J Dhulia : How can you say that?
V : It is based on religious belief, Quranic prescription
Justice Dhulia to Venkataramani: We got your point, for teacher it is a distraction.
Venkataramani : Conscience is a secular domain, distinct from religious right. Emmanuel case talks about conscience. Jehovah's witness case is based on scriptures. So essentially religious.
Justice Dhulia : Nobody is claiming any superiority.
Venkataramani : It is bound to happen once you allow the assertion of identities..
Venkataramani : The absence of assertion of the identities is a conducive environment to inculcate values about the diversity.
Justice Dhulia : How will you prepare the students, when the go out of the schools, when they face the world, they will face the great diversity of the country, in culture, in dress, cuisine, so this can be an oppurtunity to prepare them. That can be also a perspective.
Venkataramani : In a school how will you inculcate the values? In the absence of these identities or in the assertion of these identities. There will be more and more claims and where will you draw the lines.