News Analysis India

Tag: Hijab row

  • Supreme Court to consider setting up three-judge bench to hear Karnataka Hijab ban row

    By PTI

    The Supreme Court on Monday said it will consider setting up a three-judge bench to adjudicate the case related to wearing of the Islamic head covering in Karnataka schools following its split verdict.

    A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandarchud, and Justices V Ramasubramanian and JB Pardiwala, took note of the submissions of senior advocate Meenakshi Arora that an interim order was needed keeping in mind the practical examinations, scheduled for some classes from February 6 in the state.

    “This is the headscarf matter. The girls have practical examinations from February 6, 2023 and this matter needs to be listed for interim directions so that they can appear. The practical examinations will be held in government schools,” the senior lawyer said, appearing for some students.

    “I will examine it. This is a three judge bench matter. We will allot a date,” the CJI said.

    A two judge bench of the apex court had on October 13, last year delivered opposing verdicts in the hijab controversy, and urged the Chief Justice to constitute an appropriate bench to adjudicate the case that stemmed from a ban on wearing of Islamic head covering in Karnataka schools.

    While Justice Hemant Gupta, since retired, had dismissed the appeals challenging the March 15 judgement of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to lift the ban, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia held there will be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in the schools and colleges of the state.

    Permitting a community to wear its religious symbols to schools will be an “antithesis to secularism,” Justice Gupta had said, while Justice Dhulia insisted that wearing the Muslim headscarf should simply be a “matter of choice”.

    With the apex court delivering a split verdict, the high court’s judgement still holds the field.

    However, the split verdict held off a permanent resolution of the row over hijab as both judges suggested placing the matter before a larger bench for adjudication.

    On March 15, the high court dismissed the petitions filed by a section of Muslim students of the Government Pre-University Girls College in Karnataka’s Udupi seeking permission to wear the hijab inside classrooms, ruling it is not a part of the essential religious practice in Islamic faith.

    Several appeals were filed in the apex court against the verdict.

    The Supreme Court on Monday said it will consider setting up a three-judge bench to adjudicate the case related to wearing of the Islamic head covering in Karnataka schools following its split verdict.

    A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandarchud, and Justices V Ramasubramanian and JB Pardiwala, took note of the submissions of senior advocate Meenakshi Arora that an interim order was needed keeping in mind the practical examinations, scheduled for some classes from February 6 in the state.

    “This is the headscarf matter. The girls have practical examinations from February 6, 2023 and this matter needs to be listed for interim directions so that they can appear. The practical examinations will be held in government schools,” the senior lawyer said, appearing for some students.

    “I will examine it. This is a three judge bench matter. We will allot a date,” the CJI said.

    A two judge bench of the apex court had on October 13, last year delivered opposing verdicts in the hijab controversy, and urged the Chief Justice to constitute an appropriate bench to adjudicate the case that stemmed from a ban on wearing of Islamic head covering in Karnataka schools.

    While Justice Hemant Gupta, since retired, had dismissed the appeals challenging the March 15 judgement of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to lift the ban, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia held there will be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in the schools and colleges of the state.

    Permitting a community to wear its religious symbols to schools will be an “antithesis to secularism,” Justice Gupta had said, while Justice Dhulia insisted that wearing the Muslim headscarf should simply be a “matter of choice”.

    With the apex court delivering a split verdict, the high court’s judgement still holds the field.

    However, the split verdict held off a permanent resolution of the row over hijab as both judges suggested placing the matter before a larger bench for adjudication.

    On March 15, the high court dismissed the petitions filed by a section of Muslim students of the Government Pre-University Girls College in Karnataka’s Udupi seeking permission to wear the hijab inside classrooms, ruling it is not a part of the essential religious practice in Islamic faith.

    Several appeals were filed in the apex court against the verdict.

  • A year after hijab row in Karnataka, Muslim students face discrimination: Report

    By Express News Service

    BENGALURU: Muslim girls and women continue to face harassment even a year after the hijab controversy, revealed a report released by the People’s Unionfor Civil Liberties – Karnataka (PUCL-K).A PUCL-K team visited five districts in the state – Raichur, Udupi, Hassan, Shivamogga and Dakshina Kannada – and interview students, faculty and district authorities. The report titled ‘Closing the Gates of Education: Violations of Rights of Muslim Women Students’, mentioned that students have alleged they continue to face harassment from college administrations, with many compelled to shift from government to minority institutions.

    “Students from marginalised communities, religious minorities, and Adivasis have repeatedly shared their experiences of discrimination in classrooms and how it adversely affects their self-confidence, and inhibits their aspirations for higher studies and sense of freedom. A divided and discriminatory educational space directly galvanises the establishment of a further divided society,” the report stated.

    “I left my college and searched for other colleges that allowed girls to wear hijab. There was free education in government colleges but in my new college, the travel expense is high. I wanted to pursue MSc, which is not possible now. It feels that my dreams are now shattered,” a student who was interview said. The controversy had forced many to look for support from their own communities.

    “In rural Udupi, a student said that since there was a sudden change in the attitude of their neighbours and friends, many Muslim women sought support from within their community,” the report stated. The swelling presence of police on campuses, unwarranted confrontation with male students, who had threatened to kill or abuse them in social media, have made girl uncomfortable. “They said they wanted to punish and kill us. Many students come and pick fights without reason. We wrote to the principal, requesting intervention, but the principal refused,” the report quoted students.

    BENGALURU: Muslim girls and women continue to face harassment even a year after the hijab controversy, revealed a report released by the People’s Unionfor Civil Liberties – Karnataka (PUCL-K).
    A PUCL-K team visited five districts in the state – Raichur, Udupi, Hassan, Shivamogga and Dakshina Kannada – and interview students, faculty and district authorities. The report titled ‘Closing the Gates of Education: Violations of Rights of Muslim Women Students’, mentioned that students have alleged they continue to face harassment from college administrations, with many compelled to shift from government to minority institutions.

    “Students from marginalised communities, religious minorities, and Adivasis have repeatedly shared their experiences of discrimination in classrooms and how it adversely affects their self-confidence, and inhibits their aspirations for higher studies and sense of freedom. A divided and discriminatory educational space directly galvanises the establishment of a further divided society,” the report stated.

    “I left my college and searched for other colleges that allowed girls to wear hijab. There was free education in government colleges but in my new college, the travel expense is high. I wanted to pursue MSc, which is not possible now. It feels that my dreams are now shattered,” a student who was interview said. The controversy had forced many to look for support from their own communities.

    “In rural Udupi, a student said that since there was a sudden change in the attitude of their neighbours and friends, many Muslim women sought support from within their community,” the report stated. The swelling presence of police on campuses, unwarranted confrontation with male students, who had threatened to kill or abuse them in social media, have made girl uncomfortable. “They said they wanted to punish and kill us. Many students come and pick fights without reason. We wrote to the principal, requesting intervention, but the principal refused,” the report quoted students.

  • Hijab ban: Supreme Court concludes hearing, reserves judgment

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court judgement refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state.

    On March 15, the high court had dismissed petitions filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom, saying it is not a part of the essential religious practice in Islamic faith.

    The state government had, by its order of February 5, 2022, banned wearing clothes that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in schools and colleges.

    Several pleas have been filed in the apex court challenging the high court verdict.

    A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia reserved its verdict in the matter.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court judgement refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state.

    On March 15, the high court had dismissed petitions filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom, saying it is not a part of the essential religious practice in Islamic faith.

    The state government had, by its order of February 5, 2022, banned wearing clothes that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in schools and colleges.

    Several pleas have been filed in the apex court challenging the high court verdict.

    A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia reserved its verdict in the matter.

  • “Will right to dress also mean right to undress?” asks SC in Hijab case 

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked whether right to dress will also mean right to undress after a submission was made in the Karnataka Hijab case that right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution includes choice of dress.

    The poser by the apex court came during the hearing of arguments by the lawyer for one of the petitioners challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict declining to lift the state government’s ban on Hijab in educational institutions of the state.

    “You cannot take it to an illogical end,” a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia said when a previous judgement of the apex court was cited by senior advocate Devadatt Kamat and an argument raised regarding Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution and the freedom to dress.

    When the bench asked “Will right to dress mean right to undress also?,” Kamat responded to say “nobody is undressing in school.

    Kamat referred to the Karnataka government’s order of February 5, 2022, by which it had banned wearing clothes that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in schools and colleges and claimed it is targeting only one community.

    The order was challenged in the high court by some Muslim girl students.

    “It may not be right. Because one community wants to come with a headscarf. Another community is following the dress code,” the bench observed. Kamat, who also referred to “positive secularism”, said the state must exercise reasonable accommodation. “Your lordships have accepted the concept of positive secularism.”

    Referring to a previous judgement of the apex court, Kamat argued that secularism does not mean that students of only one faith will not display their religious identity.

    The court also made it clear that the question in the Karnataka Hijab ban matter is only about the restriction in schools as nobody is prohibited from wearing it anywhere else they want.

    The bench was told that the matter be referred to a five-judge constitution bench.

    Kamat argued that if a girl, in the exercise of her rights under Articles 19, 21, or 25 of the Constitution, decides to wear a Hijab, then can the State put a prohibition that will violate her rights.

    The bench orally observed, “The question is nobody is prohibiting you from wearing Hijab. You can wear it wherever you want. The only restriction is in the school. We are only concerned with that question.”

    At the outset, Kamat said his endeavour is to persuade the bench to consider reference of this matter under Article 145 (3) of the Constitution.

    Article 145 (3) says the minimum number of judges, who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article 143, shall be five.

    The senior advocate argued that the bench has to be satisfied that this is a case that requires a reference under Article 145 (3).

    “I endeavour to persuade your lordships to take this course of action,” he said, adding this is not a matter which is simply related to a violation of a statute, or a rule.

    “This case involves primarily a basic question as to whether the State has failed in its obligation to provide for reasonable accommodation, which is a Constitutional principle adopted by your lordships, for the exercise of a citizens’ rights under Articles 19, 21, and 25,” Kamat said, adding that the petitioner is not challenging the prescription of uniform in the school.

    While Article 19 deals with the protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc, Article 21 pertains to the protection of life and personal liberty.

    Article 25 of the Constitution deals with freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.

    During the arguments, Kamat referred to a circular of the Kendriya Vidyalaya and said it prescribes a uniform and makes a reasonable accommodation for Muslim girls to wear a headscarf. He also referred to a judgement of the constitutional court of South Africa in the case of a girl who wanted to wear a nose ring in school.

    “Whatever little I know, nose pin is not part of any religious practice,” Justice Gupta said, adding, “Mangalsutra is, but not the nose ring”.

    The bench observed that all over the world, women wear earrings and it is not a case of religious practice. “My impression is, no other country has this kind of a diversification as in our country,” Justice Gupta said. When Kamat referred to judgements from the US, the bench asked, “How could we compare USA and Canada with our country?” “We are very conservative,” said the bench, adding these judgements are given in the context of their society.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked whether right to dress will also mean right to undress after a submission was made in the Karnataka Hijab case that right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution includes choice of dress.

    The poser by the apex court came during the hearing of arguments by the lawyer for one of the petitioners challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict declining to lift the state government’s ban on Hijab in educational institutions of the state.

    “You cannot take it to an illogical end,” a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia said when a previous judgement of the apex court was cited by senior advocate Devadatt Kamat and an argument raised regarding Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution and the freedom to dress.

    When the bench asked “Will right to dress mean right to undress also?,” Kamat responded to say “nobody is undressing in school.

    Kamat referred to the Karnataka government’s order of February 5, 2022, by which it had banned wearing clothes that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in schools and colleges and claimed it is targeting only one community.

    The order was challenged in the high court by some Muslim girl students.

    “It may not be right. Because one community wants to come with a headscarf. Another community is following the dress code,” the bench observed. Kamat, who also referred to “positive secularism”, said the state must exercise reasonable accommodation. “Your lordships have accepted the concept of positive secularism.”

    Referring to a previous judgement of the apex court, Kamat argued that secularism does not mean that students of only one faith will not display their religious identity.

    The court also made it clear that the question in the Karnataka Hijab ban matter is only about the restriction in schools as nobody is prohibited from wearing it anywhere else they want.

    The bench was told that the matter be referred to a five-judge constitution bench.

    Kamat argued that if a girl, in the exercise of her rights under Articles 19, 21, or 25 of the Constitution, decides to wear a Hijab, then can the State put a prohibition that will violate her rights.

    The bench orally observed, “The question is nobody is prohibiting you from wearing Hijab. You can wear it wherever you want. The only restriction is in the school. We are only concerned with that question.”

    At the outset, Kamat said his endeavour is to persuade the bench to consider reference of this matter under Article 145 (3) of the Constitution.

    Article 145 (3) says the minimum number of judges, who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article 143, shall be five.

    The senior advocate argued that the bench has to be satisfied that this is a case that requires a reference under Article 145 (3).

    “I endeavour to persuade your lordships to take this course of action,” he said, adding this is not a matter which is simply related to a violation of a statute, or a rule.

    “This case involves primarily a basic question as to whether the State has failed in its obligation to provide for reasonable accommodation, which is a Constitutional principle adopted by your lordships, for the exercise of a citizens’ rights under Articles 19, 21, and 25,” Kamat said, adding that the petitioner is not challenging the prescription of uniform in the school.

    While Article 19 deals with the protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc, Article 21 pertains to the protection of life and personal liberty.

    Article 25 of the Constitution deals with freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.

    During the arguments, Kamat referred to a circular of the Kendriya Vidyalaya and said it prescribes a uniform and makes a reasonable accommodation for Muslim girls to wear a headscarf. He also referred to a judgement of the constitutional court of South Africa in the case of a girl who wanted to wear a nose ring in school.

    “Whatever little I know, nose pin is not part of any religious practice,” Justice Gupta said, adding, “Mangalsutra is, but not the nose ring”.

    The bench observed that all over the world, women wear earrings and it is not a case of religious practice. “My impression is, no other country has this kind of a diversification as in our country,” Justice Gupta said. When Kamat referred to judgements from the US, the bench asked, “How could we compare USA and Canada with our country?” “We are very conservative,” said the bench, adding these judgements are given in the context of their society.

  • Hijab ban: Supreme Court to hear pleas against Karnataka HC ruling after Holi vacation

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to list for hearing after Holi vacation the pleas challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict which dismissed the petitions seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom saying it is not a part of the essential religious practice in Islamic faith.

    A bench comprising Chief Justice NV Ramana took note of the submissions of senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for some students, that urgent hearing was needed keeping in mind the upcoming examinations.

    “The urgency is that there are many girls who have to appear in examinations,” the senior lawyer told the bench which also comprised Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli. “Others also mentioned, let us see…we will list after the vacations. Give us time,” the CJI said.

    Some petitions have been filed against the full bench high court verdict on the case in which it was held that wearing hijab is not a part of essential religious practice in Islamic faith under Article 25 of the constitution.

    The high court dismissed the petitions filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, seeking permission to wear Hijab inside the classroom. The prescription of school uniform is only a reasonable restriction, constitutionally permissible which the students cannot object to, the high court said.

  • Everybody should welcome Karnataka HC’s judgement on hijab: Rajnath

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Tuesday said the Karnataka High Court’s judgement backing a ban on wearing of hijabs in educational institutions should be welcomed by everybody.

    In an address at an event, Singh said no country or society can develop if it does not respect women.

    “I can say very confidently that there cannot be development of a society or a country if there is no respect for women. India’s approach towards women has traditionally been positive and progressive,” he said.

    “Today you have seen that the Karnataka High Court has given a judgement. I think everybody should welcome it,” he said.

    Singh was speaking at the event organised by the FICCI Ladies Organisation (FLO). The defence minister said the dress code of schools and colleges must be followed by everyone of every religion.

    Referring to the judgement, he said the court held that India’s daughters may be from any religion or region, but no restriction on them is acceptable.

    “If there is a ‘dress code’ of a school and college, then anyone from irrespective of religion and faith should follow the dress code. And the court has given its judgement corresponding to this,” Singh said.

    The defence minister also said that the government has taken a number of steps to strengthen the role of women in the armed forces. “The armed forces will see a larger participation of women in the coming years due to the recent steps taken by the government,” he said.

    “Today, women are not only working in the Army in every wing, but now we are also giving permanent commission to them. Today, admission is being given to boys as well as girls in every Sainik School. The doors of NDA (National Defence Academy) have also been opened for women,” he said.

    Singh said that about 200,000 women took the entrance exam last year for entry into the NDA with great enthusiasm. “The percentage of women in the Indian Army will increase significantly in the coming times,” said Singh.

    The defence minister also highlighted a number of schemes rolled out by the government in the last few years on skill development, employment generation and entrepreneurship. He said these schemes have paved the way for the holistic development of women and given them the confidence to forge a new identity.

    Singh made special mention of 23-year-old Vinita Singh who left a salary package of Rs one crore and launched her own startup, which has now become a Rs 300 crore company.

    He said this inspiring story has been made possible due to the policy brought out by the government to promote startups in the country. “In 2014, only 500 startups were working in the country. By 2022, this count has crossed 60,000,” he added.

    Singh reiterated the government’s commitment to promoting women entrepreneurship in India, saying that according to a study, if obstacles in the way of women are removed, at least 1.5 crore new businesses can be started, creating about 6.4 crore additional jobs, according to a defence ministry statement.

    He added that this ecosystem of women entrepreneurship will inspire more women and new businesses will emerge. At the event, rich tributes were paid to Bharat Ratna Late Lata Mangeshkar. Singh remembered the Nightingale of India, saying that she will always be alive in the heart of every Indian.

    FLO president Ujjwala Singhania and other members of the organisation were also present.

  • Hijab ban: Plea moved in SC challenging Karnataka High Court verdict

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: A special leave petition has been filed in the Supreme court by a Udupi student against the Karnataka High Court court order that ruled that wearing of hijab by Muslim women is not an essential religious practice in the Islamic faith and prescribing uniform is not a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of the Constitution.

    ALSO READ | Hijab row: Udupi Muslim girls say they will not go to college without hijab and fight it legally

    The plea states that the high court has failed to note that the right to wear a Hijab comes under the ambit of ‘expression’ and is thus protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

    “… High Court has failed to note that the right to wear a Hijab is protected as a part of the right to conscience under Article 25 of the Constitution. It is submitted that since the right to conscience is essentially an individual right, the ‘Essential Religious Practices Test’ ought not to have been applied by the Hon’ble High Court in this instant case,” the plea reads.

    It has been said in the plea that the high court has failed to note that the Indian legal system explicitly recognizes the wearing/carrying of religious symbols.

    ALSO READ | Hope attempts to push Muslim women into four walls of house fail, says Kerala Guv welcoming Hijab verdict

    “…It is pertinent to note that Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from wearing a helmet. Order IX, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules makes a special provision for affidavits that are to be sworn by pardanashin women…” It added.

    Upholding the government order dated February 5, 2022, banning the hijab in classrooms, a full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justices Krishna S Dixit, and Justice JM Khazi pronounced the verdict on a cluster of petitions questioning the order passed by the state government banning the wearing of hijab in classrooms.

  • Hijab ban in classroom: Plea in SC challenges Karnataka HC verdict

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: A plea was filed in the Supreme Court on Tuesday challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict which dismissed the petitions seeking permission to wear Hijab inside the classroom saying Hijab is not a part of the essential religious practice in Islamic faith.

    The petition has been filed in the apex court by a Muslim student who was one of the petitioners before the high court.

    Earlier in the day, the high court dismissed the petitions filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, seeking permission to wear Hijab inside the classroom.

    The prescription of school uniform is only a reasonable restriction, constitutionally permissible which the students cannot object to, the high court said.

    In the plea filed in the top court, the petitioner has said the high court has “erred in creating a dichotomy of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience wherein the court has inferred that those who follow a religion cannot have the right to conscience.”

    “The high court has failed to note that the right to wear a Hijab comes under the ambit of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the freedom of conscience forms a part of the right to privacy,” it said.

    The plea said the petitioner had approached the high court seeking redressal for the alleged violation of their fundamental rights against the state government order of February 5, 2022 issued under Sections 7 and 133 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.

    “The impugned government order directed the college development committees all over the state of Karnataka to prescribe a ‘student uniform’ that mandated the students to wear the official uniform and in absence of any designated uniform the students were mandated to wear an uniform that was in the essence of unity, equality and public order,” it said.

    The plea said the high court failed to note that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the rules made thereunder do not provide for any mandatory uniform to be worn by students.

    “The petitioner submits that the high court has failed to note that there does not exist any provision in law which prescribes any punishment for students for not wearing uniforms. Even if one were to presume that there existed a mandate to wear a particular uniform, there is no punishment prescribed in case a student does not wear the uniform,” it said.

    The petition said neither the Act nor the Rules prescribe any uniform for students or prohibit the wearing of a Hijab.

    “The high court has failed to note that the right to wear a Hijab comes under the ambit of ‘expression’ and is thus protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,” it said.

    The plea claimed that the high court has failed to note that right to wear a Hijab is protected as a part of the right to conscience under Article 25 of the Constitution.

    It said since the right to conscience is essentially an individual right, the ‘Essential Religious Practices Test’ ought not to have been applied by the high court in the case.

    “Assuming the ‘Essential Religious Practices Test’ does apply, the high court has failed to note that wearing of Hijab or headscarf is a practice that is essential to the practice of Islam,” the petition said. It claimed that the high court has failed to note that Indian legal system explicitly recognises the wearing/carrying of religious symbols.

    The plea said Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, exempts turban wearing Sikhs from wearing a helmet and under the rules made by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Sikhs are allowed to carry kirpans onto aircraft.

    “This public order was passed with an indirect intent of attacking the religious minorities and specifically the followers of Islamic faith by ridiculing the female Muslim students wearing Hijab. This ridiculing attack was under the guise of attaining secularity and equality on the basis of uniform wherein the college development committees prohibited the students wearing Hijab from entering the premises of the educational institutions,” it said.

    “This step-motherly behaviour of government authorities has prevented students from practising their faith which has resulted in an unwanted law and order situation,” the plea said.

    Meanwhile, a caveat has also been filed in the apex court by another person, who was a party before the high court, seeking to be heard before any order is passed in the matter.

    The high court maintained that the government has power to issue impugned order dated February 5, 2022 and no case is made out for its invalidation.

    By the said order, the Karnataka government had banned wearing clothes which disturb equality, integrity and public order in schools and colleges, which the Muslim girls had challenged in the high court.

    Challenging the February 5 order of the government, the petitioners had argued before the high court that wearing the Islamic headscarf was an innocent practice of faith and an Essential Religious Practice (ERP), and not a mere display of religious jingoism.

    The petitioners had also contended that the restriction violated the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(A) and article 21 dealing with personal liberty.

  • Shashi Tharoor’s retweet draws flak from Indian embassy in Kuwait

    By Express News Service

    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Senior Congress leader and MP Shashi Tharoor found himself in a spot after he retweeted a Pakistani national’s tweet which said Kuwaiti politicians had asked their government to ban the entry of BJP leaders from India following the hijab row.

    The Indian embassy in that Gulf country reacted quickly, saying the original tweet was from a Pakistani agent engaged in anti-India activities. “Sad to see an Hon’ble Member of Indian Parliament retweeting an anti-India tweet by a Pakistani agent who was recipient of a Pakistani Award ‘Ambassador of Peace’ for his anti-India activities. We should not encourage such anti-India elements,” the Indian embassy in Kuwait tweeted.

    Tharoor said he does not endorse the individual, but is concerned about the sentiment he (the Pakistani citizen) conveys on the hijab row and Muslim girls in India.

  • Karnataka hijab row: Petitioners’ counsel concludes arguments in HC, govt to argue on Friday

    By Express News Service

    BENGALURU: The Karnataka government will submit its arguments before the Karnataka High Court with regard to the hijab issue on Friday, as the arguments of the counsels of a batch of petitions questioning the ban of hijab in colleges concluded on Thursday. 

    When the arguments of the counsels of the petitioners-students concluded before the full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S Dixit and JM Khazi, the Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadagi submitted that he will argue on Friday. 

    During the hearing, Dr Vinod G Kulkarni, a consulting neuropsychiatrist from Hubballi, argued on his own with regard to filing public interest litigation filed by him, that the hijab issue has created mass hysteria and disturbed minds of all, particularly Muslim students. Therefore, Muslim girl students be permitted to wear hijab on Fridays and ensuing Ramzan, to guard the mental health, he pleaded.  

    Before this, the court dismissed a petition filed by Arif Jameel, a social activist from the city against the hijab ban on the ground that it is not maintainable, as the rules made for filing public interest litigations are not followed. 

    Meanwhile, the court also permitted the counsel to withdraw the petition filed by five students from private educational institutions in city on the ground that the impugned government order likely to be affected, as cause of action was not mentioned, with liberty to file a fresh plea with full details. 

    The court made it clear that it will allow the intervenors for arguing on the issue, if their assistance is necessary, after the arguments of the counsels of the petitioners as well as state government is concluded.