Tag: Karnataka HC

  • Hijab Ban| Rules say that educational institutions have power to prescribe uniform: Supreme Court

    Express News Service

    While hearing pleas challenging Karnataka HC’s verdict of upholding the ban on hijab, the Supreme Court on Thursday opined that there were statutory rules which say that educational institutions have the power to prescribe uniforms. 

    Responding to Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s contention that the schools could not restrict entry for not wearing a dress and that a public institution particularly a government institution could not impose a dress code, Justice Hemant Gupta asked, “So your submission is that government schools can’t have a uniform?” 

    “Yes but even if they can, they can’t restrict hijab,” Bhushan responded.  “The rules they say have the power to prescribe uniforms. Hijab is different,” Justice Dhulia said. 

    Bhushan also argued that over the years, Muslim girls wearing hijab had acquired relgious identity which was protected under article 25 of the Constitution  “It may not be prescribed as an essential practice by Quran but if it is bona fide practice followed by several women, it cannot be proscribed,” he added. 

    To make good his submission that the severe fall out of the Government Order (GO)  which restrained students to wear the hijab, or customary Islamic headscarf to educational institutions was the dropout of Muslim girls, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal referred to the RTI reply obtained by Deccan Herald as per which 145 out of 900 Muslim girls in Dakshina Kannada took transfer certificates (TC’s).

    Responding to the judge’s question as to whether the TC’s were taken after completion of the class, Sibal said that they were taken before completion of the class. 

    “See the national impact of upholding such an order, it can be very disturbing and allows invasion of rights of persons who are protected under the Constitution,” Sibal said. 

    He also added that the consequence of depriving young girls is depriving them of the fundamental right of access to education, privacy, dignity.  Sibal also said that there was no “compelling need” for the state government to pass the GO. 

    Referring to some students wearing orange shawls to protest against Hijab,  the bench said, “Some other students started wearing gamcha and all, that’s why they passed an order.” 

    “Preserving the composite nature of our culture is a fundamental duty. It’s their fundamental duty to allow us to wear it. They can’t object, who are they to object? They have no right to object. They tried to create an environment in which the state takes action. Individuals on the roadside cannot say you don’t wear a hijab. Where is the question of saying that in school,” Sibal responded. 

    Karnataka HC’s judgement is not respectful of the minority community, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves told the court. He also said the judges and courts must ask that if the turban is allowed, why not hijab? Apart from the Constitutional protection 75 years ago, what is the difference between a turban and hijab? Women feel about the hijab with the same intensity and religiosity as a Sikh boy feels about the turban.

    Senior Advocate Jayana Kothari submitted that the ban only affected Muslim girls wearing hijab and that promoted intersectional discrimination as it discriminated religion as well as sex.

    “Across the countries, most people who practice Islam recognise wearing of hijab as part of their religious and cultural practice. When a large number of courts across the world and a large segment of the population across the world recognize the hijab as part of religious and cultural practice, who are we to reinvent the world and say it’s not an essential practice? We are part of a global village and we don’t live in isolation,” Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora submitted. 

    Emphasising the fact that there is no concept of barter of fundamental rights, Advocate Shoeb Alam said, GO was an executive order & if the government wanted to restrict hijab, it could only be done by way of law. 

    While hearing pleas challenging Karnataka HC’s verdict of upholding the ban on hijab, the Supreme Court on Thursday opined that there were statutory rules which say that educational institutions have the power to prescribe uniforms. 

    Responding to Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s contention that the schools could not restrict entry for not wearing a dress and that a public institution particularly a government institution could not impose a dress code, Justice Hemant Gupta asked, “So your submission is that government schools can’t have a uniform?” 

    “Yes but even if they can, they can’t restrict hijab,” Bhushan responded.  “The rules they say have the power to prescribe uniforms. Hijab is different,” Justice Dhulia said. 

    Bhushan also argued that over the years, Muslim girls wearing hijab had acquired relgious identity which was protected under article 25 of the Constitution  “It may not be prescribed as an essential practice by Quran but if it is bona fide practice followed by several women, it cannot be proscribed,” he added. 

    To make good his submission that the severe fall out of the Government Order (GO)  which restrained students to wear the hijab, or customary Islamic headscarf to educational institutions was the dropout of Muslim girls, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal referred to the RTI reply obtained by Deccan Herald as per which 145 out of 900 Muslim girls in Dakshina Kannada took transfer certificates (TC’s).

    Responding to the judge’s question as to whether the TC’s were taken after completion of the class, Sibal said that they were taken before completion of the class. 

    “See the national impact of upholding such an order, it can be very disturbing and allows invasion of rights of persons who are protected under the Constitution,” Sibal said. 

    He also added that the consequence of depriving young girls is depriving them of the fundamental right of access to education, privacy, dignity.  Sibal also said that there was no “compelling need” for the state government to pass the GO. 

    Referring to some students wearing orange shawls to protest against Hijab,  the bench said, “Some other students started wearing gamcha and all, that’s why they passed an order.” 

    “Preserving the composite nature of our culture is a fundamental duty. It’s their fundamental duty to allow us to wear it. They can’t object, who are they to object? They have no right to object. They tried to create an environment in which the state takes action. Individuals on the roadside cannot say you don’t wear a hijab. Where is the question of saying that in school,” Sibal responded. 

    Karnataka HC’s judgement is not respectful of the minority community, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves told the court. He also said the judges and courts must ask that if the turban is allowed, why not hijab? Apart from the Constitutional protection 75 years ago, what is the difference between a turban and hijab? Women feel about the hijab with the same intensity and religiosity as a Sikh boy feels about the turban.

    Senior Advocate Jayana Kothari submitted that the ban only affected Muslim girls wearing hijab and that promoted intersectional discrimination as it discriminated religion as well as sex.

    “Across the countries, most people who practice Islam recognise wearing of hijab as part of their religious and cultural practice. When a large number of courts across the world and a large segment of the population across the world recognize the hijab as part of religious and cultural practice, who are we to reinvent the world and say it’s not an essential practice? We are part of a global village and we don’t live in isolation,” Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora submitted. 

    Emphasising the fact that there is no concept of barter of fundamental rights, Advocate Shoeb Alam said, GO was an executive order & if the government wanted to restrict hijab, it could only be done by way of law. 

  • Hijab ban: SC to hear appeals against Karnataka High Court order on Monday

    By ANI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court will hear on Monday a batch of appeals challenging the Karnataka High Court’s order which had upheld the state government’s order to ban hijabs in school and college classrooms.

    A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia will hear the pleas tomorrow, the first working day of the new Chief Justice of India UU Lalit.

    Earlier, the pleas were mentioned before a bench headed by the then CJI NV Ramana for urgent hearing on several occasions but the case was not listed for hearing.

    The appeals were filed in the apex court challenging the order upholding the Karnataka government’s order which directed strict enforcement of schools and colleges’ uniform rules.

    One of the appeals in the top court has alleged “step-motherly behaviour of government authorities which has prevented students from practising their faith and resulted in an unwanted law and order situation”.

    The appeal said the High Court in its impugned order “had vehemently failed to apply its mind and was unable to understand the gravity of the situation as well as the core aspect of the Essential Religious Practices enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution of India”.

    “Wearing of Hijab or headscarf is a practice that is essential to the practice of Islam,” it has added.

    Karnataka High Court in March had held that the prescription of uniforms is a reasonable restriction that students could not object to and dismissed various petitions challenging a ban on Hijab in education institutions saying they are without merit.

    The Hijab row had erupted in January this year when the Government PU College in Udupi allegedly barred six girls wearing the hijab from entering. Following this, the girls sat in protest outside college over being denied entry.

    After this, boys of several colleges in Udupi started attending classes wearing saffron scarves. This protest spread to other parts of the state as well leading to protests and agitations in several places in Karnataka.

    As a result, the Karnataka government said that all students must adhere to the uniform and banned both hijab and saffron scarves till an expert committee decides on the issue.

    On February 5, the pre-University education board released a circular stating that the students can only wear the uniform approved by the school administration and that no other religious attire will be allowed in colleges.

    The order stated that in case a uniform is not prescribed by management committees, then students should wear dresses that go well with the idea of equality and unity, and do not disturb the social order.

    A batch of appeals was filed against the government’s rule in the Karnataka High Court by some girls seeking permission to wear the hijab in educational institutions.

    On February 10, the High Court had issued an interim order stating that students should not wear any religious attire to classes till the court issues the final order. The hearings related to the Hijab case were concluded on February 25 and the court had reserved its judgement. 

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court will hear on Monday a batch of appeals challenging the Karnataka High Court’s order which had upheld the state government’s order to ban hijabs in school and college classrooms.

    A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia will hear the pleas tomorrow, the first working day of the new Chief Justice of India UU Lalit.

    Earlier, the pleas were mentioned before a bench headed by the then CJI NV Ramana for urgent hearing on several occasions but the case was not listed for hearing.

    The appeals were filed in the apex court challenging the order upholding the Karnataka government’s order which directed strict enforcement of schools and colleges’ uniform rules.

    One of the appeals in the top court has alleged “step-motherly behaviour of government authorities which has prevented students from practising their faith and resulted in an unwanted law and order situation”.

    The appeal said the High Court in its impugned order “had vehemently failed to apply its mind and was unable to understand the gravity of the situation as well as the core aspect of the Essential Religious Practices enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution of India”.

    “Wearing of Hijab or headscarf is a practice that is essential to the practice of Islam,” it has added.

    Karnataka High Court in March had held that the prescription of uniforms is a reasonable restriction that students could not object to and dismissed various petitions challenging a ban on Hijab in education institutions saying they are without merit.

    The Hijab row had erupted in January this year when the Government PU College in Udupi allegedly barred six girls wearing the hijab from entering. Following this, the girls sat in protest outside college over being denied entry.

    After this, boys of several colleges in Udupi started attending classes wearing saffron scarves. This protest spread to other parts of the state as well leading to protests and agitations in several places in Karnataka.

    As a result, the Karnataka government said that all students must adhere to the uniform and banned both hijab and saffron scarves till an expert committee decides on the issue.

    On February 5, the pre-University education board released a circular stating that the students can only wear the uniform approved by the school administration and that no other religious attire will be allowed in colleges.

    The order stated that in case a uniform is not prescribed by management committees, then students should wear dresses that go well with the idea of equality and unity, and do not disturb the social order.

    A batch of appeals was filed against the government’s rule in the Karnataka High Court by some girls seeking permission to wear the hijab in educational institutions.

    On February 10, the High Court had issued an interim order stating that students should not wear any religious attire to classes till the court issues the final order. The hearings related to the Hijab case were concluded on February 25 and the court had reserved its judgement. 

  • 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.

  • Hijab row: SC says it will protect fundamental rights of citizens, take up plea at appropriate time

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday said it will protect the constitutional rights of every citizen and take up at an “appropriate time” the pleas challenging a direction of the Karnataka High Court asking students not to wear any religious cloth in educational institutions.

    A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana was told by senior advocate Devdutt Kamat, appearing for the students, that the high court order has led to the “suspension of fundamental right to practice religion under Article 25 of the Constitution” and the plea be listed for hearing on Monday.

    The top court referred to the ongoing hearing in the case, and said, “We will protect the fundamental right of every citizen and will take it up at an appropriate time.”

    “We will see,” the CJI said when Kamat insisted on listing of the plea for urgent hearing.

    A three-judge bench of the Karnataka High court, hearing the ‘hijab’ issue on Thursday, asked students not to insist on wearing any cloth on campuses of educational institutions which can instigate people, till the matter is resolved.

  • Ghaziabad Police not keen on investigating Twitter India’s role in viral video: Karnataka High Court

    By PTI
    BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday said the Ghaziabad police was not keen on investigating the case involving Twitter India MD Manish Maheshwari’s role in a controversial viral video posted by an individual on its platform, claiming that an elderly man’s beard was cut as he was forced to chant ‘Jai Sri Ram’ and ‘Vande Mataram’.

    Hearing the matter, the single bench of Justice G Narendar remarked: “It is a matter of investigation, that is why I am asking why you have not investigated. The whole problem is you don’t want to investigate.”

    Grilling the respondent, the Ghaziabad police, the court asked, “You are not answering my question at all– On what basis are you saying Twitter India is responsible?” Noting that Twitter India and Twitter Inc were two independent bodies, the court also wondered whether Twitter India is even an intermediary.

    “The complainant is very clear that they are two independent bodies. So, where is the investigation?” the court asked the respondent.

    Asking the Ghaziabad police not to mix up Twitter India and Twitter Inc as they are independent bodies, the court sought to know whether the police had even visited the Registrar of Companies (ROC).

    “Whether they are required to confirm their compliance with the rules? Where is that material? Unless they are the intermediary…there is no conclusive evidence by you that they are even the intermediary,” the court observed.

    The bench told the respondent that they could have got information within a day about the activities of the firm from the ROC to verify the content and veracity of the statement by Maheshwari that Twitter India is a separate entity.

    “It is not that he (Maheshwari) is defiant. He is very specific, categorical. He says I have no control over the uploading of the video. At least before this court, he has placed the material,” the court observed.

    Appearing on behalf of Maheshwari, advocate C V Nagesh insisted that Twitter is not even an intermediary as the charges are against Twitter India and not Twitter Inc (USA).

    The court then asked the respondent, Where are you heading? (Where are you taking the case?)” “It is nothing but intimidating tactics, that’s all…to achieve some other goal, which otherwise they cannot do it,” Nagesh alleged.

    The matter has been posted for Wednesday.

    The case is related to the notice issued by the Ghaziabad police under Section 41-A of the CrPC on June 21, asking Maheshwari to report at the Loni Border police station at 10.30 am on June 24.

    Maheshwari then moved the Karnataka High Court as he lives in Bengaluru.

    On June 24, the High Court had restrained the Ghaziabad police from initiating any coercive action against him.

    Justice Narendar also maintained that if the police wanted to examine him, they could do so through virtual mode.

    The Ghaziabad Police on June 15 booked Twitter Inc, Twitter Communications India, news website The Wire, journalists Mohammed Zubair and Rana Ayyub, besides Congress leaders Salman Nizami, Maskoor Usmani, Shama Mohamed and writer Saba Naqvi.

    They were booked over the circulation of a video in which the elderly man, Abdul Shamad Saifi, claims he was allegedly thrashed by some young men, who also asked him to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ on June 5.

    According to police, the video was shared to cause communal unrest.