Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Hijab Ban- Supreme Court Hearing- DAY-10 Live Updates

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
22 Sep 2022 5:05 AM GMT
Hijab Ban- Supreme Court Hearing- DAY-10 Live Updates
x

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 by 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.

Live Updates

  • 22 Sep 2022 7:39 AM GMT

     Supreme Court concludes hearing in the Hijab case. Reserves judgment.

  • 22 Sep 2022 7:31 AM GMT

    Hegde : The only power they are showing is Rule 11..

    J Gupta : Mr.Hegde we have understood your submissions. Now our homework starts.

  • 22 Sep 2022 7:29 AM GMT

    Hegde : So the question of essential religious practice, was it essential to be decided? It was no essential. It could have been decided on narrow grounds. Do you ave the power? Has the power been exercised just and reasonable? 

  • 22 Sep 2022 7:27 AM GMT

    Kamat concludes. Sr Adv Sanjay Hegde now making rejoinder. He cites Justice Gajendragadkar's judgment in Mirajkar case to say if an issue can be decided on narrow grounds, that course should be adopted, leaving larger issues undecided. 

  • 22 Sep 2022 7:23 AM GMT

    Kamat : For example, I keep a photo of Krishna in my pocket. And State says you can't keep the photo of Krishna. When I challenge it, Court should asks why is the restriction and not whether I have the right to keep the photo.

    Kamat : Lets take Solicitor's saffron example in reverse. A Brahmin boy wears a namam in a Muslim locality. Some students take objection and they start wearing green dress. Will the State then order don't wear namam?

  • 22 Sep 2022 7:21 AM GMT

    Kamat : State has to cross the threshold. I am saying it is not a restriction.

    J Gupta : If it is not a restriction, it does not violate your fundamental rights.

    Kamat : I am saying it is not a valid restriction.

  • 22 Sep 2022 7:19 AM GMT

    Kamat : What we have argued is, essential religious test does not arise at this stage, that first you have to show how the restriction is valid.

    J Gupta : How it does not arise?

  • 22 Sep 2022 7:18 AM GMT

    Kamat : In High Court as well, I have said essential religious practice is not necessary. See my written submissions

    J Gupta : You may not have raised, but the writ petitions raised.

  • 22 Sep 2022 7:17 AM GMT

    Kamat : The test is, whether the restriction is valid? High Court says -show your right. High Court inversed the test.

    Justice Gupta : You went to the Court against the Govt Order.

  • 22 Sep 2022 7:15 AM GMT

    Kamat : The only judgment which deal with Article 25 and 19 in the context of school discipline is Bijoe Emmanuel. High Court says it was in a different context..that it was on freedom of conscience.

Next Story