News Analysis India

Tag: Karnataka

  • Courts not forums to solve theological questions, says Justice Dhulia

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The courts are not forums to solve “theological questions”, Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia said on Thursday in his verdict on the Karnataka hijab ban controversy.

    A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia delivered split verdicts and referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate bench to consider the contentious issue.

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

    In his separate judgement, Justice Dhulia noted that apart from the fact that essential religious practice was not essential to the determination of the dispute, there was another aspect that is even more important, which would explain as to why the courts should be slow in the matters of determining as to what is an essential religious practice.

    “In my humble opinion courts are not the forums to solve theological questions.

    Courts are not well equipped to do that for various reasons, but most importantly because there will always be more than one viewpoint on a particular religious matter, and therefore nothing gives the authority to the court to pick one over the other,” he said in his 73-page verdict.

    ALSO READ: SC delivers split verdict on Karnataka Hijab ban

    Justice Dhulia said the courts, however, must interfere when the boundaries set by the Constitution are broken or where unjustified restrictions are imposed.

    Referring to the apex court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi case, he noted that the top court had cautioned not to venture into areas of theology with which the courts are not well equipped.

    “There may be diversity of views within a religion and to choose one over others, may not be correct. Courts should steer clear from interpreting religious scriptures,” he noted.

    Justice Dhulia said as to what constitutes an essential religious practice, in all its complexities, is a matter which is pending consideration before a nine-judge constitution bench of the apex court and therefore, it may not be proper for him to go any further into this aspect.

    He observed that the Karnataka hijab ban case is “squarely covered” by the case of Bijoe Emmanuel and the ratio laid down there.

    “The decision which is of essential importance in this case for our purposes is the decision given by this court in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel.”

    “It is necessary to refer to this case in some detail, as in my opinion this case is the guiding star which will show us the path laid down by the well established principles of our Constitutional values, the path of understanding and tolerance, which we may also call as ‘reasonable accommodation’, as explained by some of the lawyers before this court,” he said.

    In the Bijoe Emmanuel case, the apex court had upheld the right of the students belonging to Jehovah’s Witnesses not to sing the national anthem during the school prayer though the students stood up and extended all respect.

    ALSO READ: Necessary to have discipline in schools but not at cost of freedom & dignity: Justice Dhulia

    In that case, the court held the real test of a true democracy is the ability of even an insignificant minority to find its identity under the Constitution.

    “The girls before us today face the same predicament as the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the above case. The present petitioners too wear hijab as an article of their faith. They too believe that it is a part of their religion and social practice,” Justice Dhulia said.

    He noted that the approach of the high court could have been different and instead of straightaway taking the essential religious practice route, as a threshold requirement, the court could have first examined whether the restriction imposed by the school or the government order on wearing hijab were valid restrictions.

    The state government’s February 5, 2022 order had banned wearing clothes that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in schools and colleges On March 15, the high court had 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 Muslim headscarf inside classrooms, ruling it is not a part of the essential religious practice in Islamic faith.

    NEW DELHI: The courts are not forums to solve “theological questions”, Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia said on Thursday in his verdict on the Karnataka hijab ban controversy.

    A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia delivered split verdicts and referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate bench to consider the contentious issue.

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

    In his separate judgement, Justice Dhulia noted that apart from the fact that essential religious practice was not essential to the determination of the dispute, there was another aspect that is even more important, which would explain as to why the courts should be slow in the matters of determining as to what is an essential religious practice.

    “In my humble opinion courts are not the forums to solve theological questions.

    Courts are not well equipped to do that for various reasons, but most importantly because there will always be more than one viewpoint on a particular religious matter, and therefore nothing gives the authority to the court to pick one over the other,” he said in his 73-page verdict.

    ALSO READ: SC delivers split verdict on Karnataka Hijab ban

    Justice Dhulia said the courts, however, must interfere when the boundaries set by the Constitution are broken or where unjustified restrictions are imposed.

    Referring to the apex court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi case, he noted that the top court had cautioned not to venture into areas of theology with which the courts are not well equipped.

    “There may be diversity of views within a religion and to choose one over others, may not be correct. Courts should steer clear from interpreting religious scriptures,” he noted.

    Justice Dhulia said as to what constitutes an essential religious practice, in all its complexities, is a matter which is pending consideration before a nine-judge constitution bench of the apex court and therefore, it may not be proper for him to go any further into this aspect.

    He observed that the Karnataka hijab ban case is “squarely covered” by the case of Bijoe Emmanuel and the ratio laid down there.

    “The decision which is of essential importance in this case for our purposes is the decision given by this court in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel.”

    “It is necessary to refer to this case in some detail, as in my opinion this case is the guiding star which will show us the path laid down by the well established principles of our Constitutional values, the path of understanding and tolerance, which we may also call as ‘reasonable accommodation’, as explained by some of the lawyers before this court,” he said.

    In the Bijoe Emmanuel case, the apex court had upheld the right of the students belonging to Jehovah’s Witnesses not to sing the national anthem during the school prayer though the students stood up and extended all respect.

    ALSO READ: Necessary to have discipline in schools but not at cost of freedom & dignity: Justice Dhulia

    In that case, the court held the real test of a true democracy is the ability of even an insignificant minority to find its identity under the Constitution.

    “The girls before us today face the same predicament as the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the above case. The present petitioners too wear hijab as an article of their faith. They too believe that it is a part of their religion and social practice,” Justice Dhulia said.

    He noted that the approach of the high court could have been different and instead of straightaway taking the essential religious practice route, as a threshold requirement, the court could have first examined whether the restriction imposed by the school or the government order on wearing hijab were valid restrictions.

    The state government’s February 5, 2022 order had banned wearing clothes that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in schools and colleges On March 15, the high court had 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 Muslim headscarf inside classrooms, ruling it is not a part of the essential religious practice in Islamic faith.

  • Supreme Court to pronounce verdict on Karnataka’s hijab ban on Thursday

    By IANS

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on a clutch of petitions challenging the Karnataka government’s February 5 order, prohibiting wearing of hijab inside classrooms in pre-university colleges.

    According to the apex court website, the bench will pronounce the judgment on October 13.

    After 10 days of marathon hearings, on September 22, a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia reserved their judgment after hearing arguments from the counsel representing the state government, teachers, and the petitioners, who moved the apex court challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state.

    During the hearing, the petitioners contended that the high court had wrongly relied upon essential religious practice test for the purpose.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Karnataka government, had alleged that till the year 2021, no girl student was wearing any hijab and uniform being part of essential discipline in schools was being scrupulously followed. However, then a movement started on social media by an organisation called Popular Front of India (PFI) and the movement was designed to create an agitation. Mehta added there were messages on social media to begin wearing hijab and this was not a spontaneous act, instead it was a part of larger conspiracy, and children were acting as advised.

    Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing some of the petitioners, submitted that the argument of PFI was not raised before the high court and it is an argument introduced to create prejudice.

    The petitioners claimed the Karnataka government order (GO) targeted Muslim women and violated Article 14, and 15 of the Constitution. Therefore, it was irrational, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

    Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing some of the petitioners, while making rejoinder submissions, said for those who are believers, hijab is essential and for those who are not believers, it is not essential. He added that there was no cause to issue guidelines in February this year.

    The petitioners’ counsel vehemently argued that the government order violated their fundamental right to practice religion and cultural rights, which were guaranteed under the Constitution.

    Dave submitted that the Department of Education had issued guidelines for academic year 2021-2022, and according to it, uniform is not compulsory. Therefore, Karnataka GO dated February 5 could not supersede these guidelines, he added.

    A battery of other senior advocates — Rajeev Dhavan, Kapil Sibal, Colin Gonsalves, Devadatt Kamat, Sanjay Hegde, Salman Khurshid – also represented the petitioners before the apex court.

    The Karnataka government was represented by Solicitor General Mehta and Advocate General Prabhuling K. Navadgi.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on a clutch of petitions challenging the Karnataka government’s February 5 order, prohibiting wearing of hijab inside classrooms in pre-university colleges.

    According to the apex court website, the bench will pronounce the judgment on October 13.

    After 10 days of marathon hearings, on September 22, a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia reserved their judgment after hearing arguments from the counsel representing the state government, teachers, and the petitioners, who moved the apex court challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state.

    During the hearing, the petitioners contended that the high court had wrongly relied upon essential religious practice test for the purpose.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Karnataka government, had alleged that till the year 2021, no girl student was wearing any hijab and uniform being part of essential discipline in schools was being scrupulously followed. However, then a movement started on social media by an organisation called Popular Front of India (PFI) and the movement was designed to create an agitation. Mehta added there were messages on social media to begin wearing hijab and this was not a spontaneous act, instead it was a part of larger conspiracy, and children were acting as advised.

    Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing some of the petitioners, submitted that the argument of PFI was not raised before the high court and it is an argument introduced to create prejudice.

    The petitioners claimed the Karnataka government order (GO) targeted Muslim women and violated Article 14, and 15 of the Constitution. Therefore, it was irrational, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

    Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing some of the petitioners, while making rejoinder submissions, said for those who are believers, hijab is essential and for those who are not believers, it is not essential. He added that there was no cause to issue guidelines in February this year.

    The petitioners’ counsel vehemently argued that the government order violated their fundamental right to practice religion and cultural rights, which were guaranteed under the Constitution.

    Dave submitted that the Department of Education had issued guidelines for academic year 2021-2022, and according to it, uniform is not compulsory. Therefore, Karnataka GO dated February 5 could not supersede these guidelines, he added.

    A battery of other senior advocates — Rajeev Dhavan, Kapil Sibal, Colin Gonsalves, Devadatt Kamat, Sanjay Hegde, Salman Khurshid – also represented the petitioners before the apex court.

    The Karnataka government was represented by Solicitor General Mehta and Advocate General Prabhuling K. Navadgi.

  • Chinese army in India, PM Modi messed up big time: Rahul Gandhi

    By Express News Service

     TURUVEKERE: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said the party would continue to raise the fundamental issue of poor handling of external affairs by the Central government. “The Chinese army is sitting today inside Indian territory, and has occupied more than 1,000 sqkm, a slightly smaller area than Delhi, and the government refuses to do anything, refuses a discussion in Parliament as it is scared. The PM stated that no land has been taken and destroyed India’s negotiating position. But we will continue to raise the issue,” he told the media.

    On the ban on Popular Front of India, he clarified that he is in favour of a ban on any organisation or individual who spreads hatred in society, regardless of their community, and everybody should oppose hatred. 

    The NEP is against the ethos of the country as it distorts our history, tradition and culture, besides centralising the education system, he remarked.  On the BJP’s allegation that the Congress contributed to India’s partition, Rahul shot back that no RSS leader had fought for freedom. “According to my understanding of history, they backed the British and Veer Savarkar was an example,” he alleged. 

    Rahul said the Bharat Jodo Yatra is not aimed at the 2024 polls, though political leaders are participating in it. “By nature, I believe in tapasya. I wanted an element in this communication with people, the element of suffering for myself. I can share the suffering, that’s the idea of my yatra,” he said philosophically.

     TURUVEKERE: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said the party would continue to raise the fundamental issue of poor handling of external affairs by the Central government. “The Chinese army is sitting today inside Indian territory, and has occupied more than 1,000 sqkm, a slightly smaller area than Delhi, and the government refuses to do anything, refuses a discussion in Parliament as it is scared. The PM stated that no land has been taken and destroyed India’s negotiating position. But we will continue to raise the issue,” he told the media.

    On the ban on Popular Front of India, he clarified that he is in favour of a ban on any organisation or individual who spreads hatred in society, regardless of their community, and everybody should oppose hatred. 

    The NEP is against the ethos of the country as it distorts our history, tradition and culture, besides centralising the education system, he remarked.  On the BJP’s allegation that the Congress contributed to India’s partition, Rahul shot back that no RSS leader had fought for freedom. “According to my understanding of history, they backed the British and Veer Savarkar was an example,” he alleged. 

    Rahul said the Bharat Jodo Yatra is not aimed at the 2024 polls, though political leaders are participating in it. “By nature, I believe in tapasya. I wanted an element in this communication with people, the element of suffering for myself. I can share the suffering, that’s the idea of my yatra,” he said philosophically.

  • Unpopularity of BJP govt feeding Bharat Jodo Yatra’s success: Yogendra Yadav

    Express News Service

    MYSURU: Political analyst, social activist and president of Swaraj India Party Yogendra Yadav, who has joined the Rahul Gandhi-led Bharat Jodo Yatra, shared his thoughts with The New Sunday Express on why this journey is important and how it will bring the country together to fight politics of hatred.

    Yadav, who has been walking nearly 20 km every day for the last one month, said the yatra has shown the promise of challenging the dominant narrative and highlighting real issues bothering society.

    Asked about nine days of the yatra in the state, he said, “We began with both expectation and apprehension. Expectation because this is the land that offers deepest intellectual, cultural and literary resources to combat the politics of hate. Apprehension because the reception in Kerala was so good and we were worried if Karnataka could match it. But it has turned out better than what I expected with noted writer Devanuru Mahadeva welcoming the yatra, many cultural icons expressing support and family members of Gauri Lankesh walking along,” he said.

    Asked if it will have any political implications in the state that is going for polls, he said, “Unpopularity of the BJP government is feeding the success of the yatra here. There is a to-and-fro effect here. Unpopularity of BJP is making the yatra a success and the success of yatra will make BJP much weaker. What matters to me is the resolve to take on politics of hatred for which Karnataka is made a prime laboratory. This needs to be defeated and if that means BJP losing in the election. nothing can be better than that.”

    MYSURU: Political analyst, social activist and president of Swaraj India Party Yogendra Yadav, who has joined the Rahul Gandhi-led Bharat Jodo Yatra, shared his thoughts with The New Sunday Express on why this journey is important and how it will bring the country together to fight politics of hatred.

    Yadav, who has been walking nearly 20 km every day for the last one month, said the yatra has shown the promise of challenging the dominant narrative and highlighting real issues bothering society.

    Asked about nine days of the yatra in the state, he said, “We began with both expectation and apprehension. Expectation because this is the land that offers deepest intellectual, cultural and literary resources to combat the politics of hate. Apprehension because the reception in Kerala was so good and we were worried if Karnataka could match it. But it has turned out better than what I expected with noted writer Devanuru Mahadeva welcoming the yatra, many cultural icons expressing support and family members of Gauri Lankesh walking along,” he said.

    Asked if it will have any political implications in the state that is going for polls, he said, “Unpopularity of the BJP government is feeding the success of the yatra here. There is a to-and-fro effect here. Unpopularity of BJP is making the yatra a success and the success of yatra will make BJP much weaker. What matters to me is the resolve to take on politics of hatred for which Karnataka is made a prime laboratory. This needs to be defeated and if that means BJP losing in the election. nothing can be better than that.”

  • ‘Talk less, listen more’ is Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Yatra mantra

    Express News Service

    NAGAMANGALA (MANDYA): Throwing away all netagiri, former AICC president Rahul Gandhi has hit the road with one concept: Talk less, listen more. During the course of the Bharat Jodo Yatra, Rahul is mixing with people, giving a patient hearing to those who want to talk about problems, and humbly requesting them to suggest solutions too.

    During an interaction with this correspondent over a 3-km long walk, he reversed the question-answer session, seeking details on a variety of issues and challenges facing different segments of society, especially farmers. The Congress icon has been interacting with people to know their grievances, besides the region’s core social and political problems.

    As the yatra passed through the sugar bowl of Mandya, Rahul Gandhi got some in-depth knowledge on the agrarian realities. When he sought to know why farmers had not taken up agriculture activities, they told him they were helpless as many who had grown horticulture crops like tomato, brinjal, beans and others crops, had suffered from a crash in prices. With their pockets empty, and little support from banks, they couldn’t invest in their farms again.

    When told that farmers were happy with the loan waiver implemented by the Siddaramaiah government, a jovial Rahul said he was the force behind the waiver and other welfare programmes, but the people were not aware of it. He was curious to know about the family and agricultural background of this correspondent, besides agro economics.

    Rahul said the BJP is making all attempts to weaken the Constitution and change it, and that he wanted to wake up the people and sensitise them to the dangers of this exercise. “People should now decide and play a role on how the Constitution needs to be protected,” he said.

    He threw back questions on the success of the BJP and its religious politics, and Dalits looking to the saffron party for positions. He questioned why a section of educated Dalits was turning to the saffron party, when the BJP is trying to take away their rights.

    Expressing huge respect for former President K Narayanan, he said, “I have met him, he is incomparable, and always ensured that he followed the Constitution.” Rahul, who was curious about social ills and evils prevailing in modern times, felt a social boycott has great impact on children, and that belief in the Constitution and mutual respect can bring about positive change.

    Having been on the yatra for weeks now, Rahul said right from Kanyakumari, through Kerala and Karnataka, he has perceived a “large river of people flowing”, and there is only faith, no hatred or anger in this river. Quoting Basavanna, he said that the social reformer had taught people not to hate anybody, treat others as you would treat yourself and also listen to them.

    “These are the lessons I have imbibed in this yatra, while the present-day ideology of the government has divided the country,” he said. “The DNA and essence of this country is that we should not hate anybody, and treat others equally.”

    NAGAMANGALA (MANDYA): Throwing away all netagiri, former AICC president Rahul Gandhi has hit the road with one concept: Talk less, listen more. During the course of the Bharat Jodo Yatra, Rahul is mixing with people, giving a patient hearing to those who want to talk about problems, and humbly requesting them to suggest solutions too.

    During an interaction with this correspondent over a 3-km long walk, he reversed the question-answer session, seeking details on a variety of issues and challenges facing different segments of society, especially farmers. The Congress icon has been interacting with people to know their grievances, besides the region’s core social and political problems.

    As the yatra passed through the sugar bowl of Mandya, Rahul Gandhi got some in-depth knowledge on the agrarian realities. When he sought to know why farmers had not taken up agriculture activities, they told him they were helpless as many who had grown horticulture crops like tomato, brinjal, beans and others crops, had suffered from a crash in prices. With their pockets empty, and little support from banks, they couldn’t invest in their farms again.

    When told that farmers were happy with the loan waiver implemented by the Siddaramaiah government, a jovial Rahul said he was the force behind the waiver and other welfare programmes, but the people were not aware of it. He was curious to know about the family and agricultural background of this correspondent, besides agro economics.

    Rahul said the BJP is making all attempts to weaken the Constitution and change it, and that he wanted to wake up the people and sensitise them to the dangers of this exercise. “People should now decide and play a role on how the Constitution needs to be protected,” he said.

    He threw back questions on the success of the BJP and its religious politics, and Dalits looking to the saffron party for positions. He questioned why a section of educated Dalits was turning to the saffron party, when the BJP is trying to take away their rights.

    Expressing huge respect for former President K Narayanan, he said, “I have met him, he is incomparable, and always ensured that he followed the Constitution.” Rahul, who was curious about social ills and evils prevailing in modern times, felt a social boycott has great impact on children, and that belief in the Constitution and mutual respect can bring about positive change.

    Having been on the yatra for weeks now, Rahul said right from Kanyakumari, through Kerala and Karnataka, he has perceived a “large river of people flowing”, and there is only faith, no hatred or anger in this river. Quoting Basavanna, he said that the social reformer had taught people not to hate anybody, treat others as you would treat yourself and also listen to them.

    “These are the lessons I have imbibed in this yatra, while the present-day ideology of the government has divided the country,” he said. “The DNA and essence of this country is that we should not hate anybody, and treat others equally.”

  • BJP announces state in charges, Tawde in Bihar and Mangal Pandey in Bengal

    By ANI

    NEW DELHI: Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national president JP Nadda on Friday appointed in charge of various states and union territories including poll-bound states like Tripura and Telangana.

    Vinod Tawde has been appointed as General Secretary in Bihar, while Harish Dwivedi continues to be the co-in-charge.

    Om Mathur who had been recently appointed to the Parliamentary board has been made in charge of Chhattisgarh.

    Former Tripura Chief Minister Biplab Deb has been given an organisational responsibility and made in-charge of Haryana.

    Vinod Sonkar who was in charge of Tripura, which goes into election next year, has been replaced by former union minister and Noida MP Dr Mahesh Sharma.

    Former Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani has also been given organisational responsibilities in Punjab and Chandigarh. National General Secretary Tarun Chugh continues to be in charge of Telangana.

    Bengal has found a new in charge in the form of Bihar MLC Mangal Pandey whereas Amit Malviya continues to be the co-in charge.

    Kerala has a new in charge in the form of former union minister Prakash Javadekar. General secretary Arun Singh also continues to be in charge of Rajasthan.

    National general secretary Dilip Saikia has been replaced by Laxmi Kant Bajpai in Jharkhand. Recently Bajpai was brought to the Rajya Sabha from Uttar Pradesh and has also been made the chief whip of the party in the Rajya Sabha

    Sources aware of the development say that these appointments have been made keeping in mind various combinations of caste and keeping people who have previously held positions of power engaged in organisational work.

    The year 2023 will be full of electoral battles in which states like Tripura, Meghalaya, and Nagaland are going to the polls in the first part of the year. The mid-year will be the Karnataka assembly elections.

    While the BJP is in power in the states of Meghalaya and Nagaland in alliance with NDA partners, the party which stunned everyone with the Tripura elections in 2018 is looking at a repeat term.

    Amid the backlash that Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai has been facing recently, Karnataka will be a stiff challenge for BJP.

    It is already known that the mother of all battles will be Telangana, where the BJP is pitted against the ruling TRS party and the party has been constantly making its presence felt on the ground.

    While the BJP continues to be in power in Madhya Pradesh with Shivraj Singh Chauhan at the head, it will be a stiff challenge for them to come back to power in the states of Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan which they lost in the last election.

    Incidentally, former Rajasthan chief Minister Vasundhara Raje and former Chhattisgarh CM Dr Raman Singh continue to be the most powerful and strong faces.

    BJP national spokesperson Sumit Batra has been entrusted with the responsibility of being the coordinator for the north-east region.

    NEW DELHI: Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national president JP Nadda on Friday appointed in charge of various states and union territories including poll-bound states like Tripura and Telangana.

    Vinod Tawde has been appointed as General Secretary in Bihar, while Harish Dwivedi continues to be the co-in-charge.

    Om Mathur who had been recently appointed to the Parliamentary board has been made in charge of Chhattisgarh.

    Former Tripura Chief Minister Biplab Deb has been given an organisational responsibility and made in-charge of Haryana.

    Vinod Sonkar who was in charge of Tripura, which goes into election next year, has been replaced by former union minister and Noida MP Dr Mahesh Sharma.

    Former Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani has also been given organisational responsibilities in Punjab and Chandigarh. National General Secretary Tarun Chugh continues to be in charge of Telangana.

    Bengal has found a new in charge in the form of Bihar MLC Mangal Pandey whereas Amit Malviya continues to be the co-in charge.

    Kerala has a new in charge in the form of former union minister Prakash Javadekar. General secretary Arun Singh also continues to be in charge of Rajasthan.

    National general secretary Dilip Saikia has been replaced by Laxmi Kant Bajpai in Jharkhand. Recently Bajpai was brought to the Rajya Sabha from Uttar Pradesh and has also been made the chief whip of the party in the Rajya Sabha

    Sources aware of the development say that these appointments have been made keeping in mind various combinations of caste and keeping people who have previously held positions of power engaged in organisational work.

    The year 2023 will be full of electoral battles in which states like Tripura, Meghalaya, and Nagaland are going to the polls in the first part of the year. The mid-year will be the Karnataka assembly elections.

    While the BJP is in power in the states of Meghalaya and Nagaland in alliance with NDA partners, the party which stunned everyone with the Tripura elections in 2018 is looking at a repeat term.

    Amid the backlash that Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai has been facing recently, Karnataka will be a stiff challenge for BJP.

    It is already known that the mother of all battles will be Telangana, where the BJP is pitted against the ruling TRS party and the party has been constantly making its presence felt on the ground.

    While the BJP continues to be in power in Madhya Pradesh with Shivraj Singh Chauhan at the head, it will be a stiff challenge for them to come back to power in the states of Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan which they lost in the last election.

    Incidentally, former Rajasthan chief Minister Vasundhara Raje and former Chhattisgarh CM Dr Raman Singh continue to be the most powerful and strong faces.

    BJP national spokesperson Sumit Batra has been entrusted with the responsibility of being the coordinator for the north-east region.

  • “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.

  • BJP government misusing NIA to target Muslim leaders, says Karnataka PFI

    By Express News Service

    MANGALURU: A day after NIA implicated the Popular Front of India (PFI) for the murder of BJP worker Praveen Nettaru, the PFI Karnataka State Committee on Wednesday accused the BJP government of misusing the NIA in order to target the leaders of the organisation on the pretext of investigating the Praveen Nettaru murder case.

    “There have been several murder incidents in the state recently, including the serial killings in Dakshina Kannada district. The BJP government has not given any significance to the investigation of the murders of Arbaaz from Belagavi, Sameer Shahapur, Masood of Sullia, Fazil of Suratkal. Just the murder of rowdy sheeter Harsha from Shivamoga and Praveen Nettaru is glorified,” PFI state secretary AK Ashraf told reporters at a press meet here.

    He said the preliminary investigation conducted by the local police into Harsh’s murder revealed that it was a fallout of a gang war while Praveen’s murder was due to local communal enmity. However, he alleged that Sangh Parivar activists were involved directly in the murder cases of Muslim youths in the state and accused the BJP government of following a biased approach.

    Ashraf further alleged that there was a larger conspiracy behind handing over only the murder cases of BJP workers to NIA. “It is clear that they have misused NIA. A Muslim youth accused in the recent stabbing incident in Shivamoga also has been booked under UAPA, which is an example of how the BJP is misusing investigative agencies like the NIA,” he said.

    Ashraf termed the NIA raids on the houses and offices of the leaders of Muslim organisations as misuse of constitutional institutions and harmful to democracy.

    “The BJP government has been executing massive campaigns against its staunch ideological opponent – PDI – to cover up its administrative failures. But so far it has not been able to provide legal evidence against the constitutionally functioning PFI. We cannot be intimated by such threats. The BJP government should immediately stop targetting Muslim leaders using NIA failing which the organisation will launch legal and democratic struggles across the state,” he threatened.

    MANGALURU: A day after NIA implicated the Popular Front of India (PFI) for the murder of BJP worker Praveen Nettaru, the PFI Karnataka State Committee on Wednesday accused the BJP government of misusing the NIA in order to target the leaders of the organisation on the pretext of investigating the Praveen Nettaru murder case.

    “There have been several murder incidents in the state recently, including the serial killings in Dakshina Kannada district. The BJP government has not given any significance to the investigation of the murders of Arbaaz from Belagavi, Sameer Shahapur, Masood of Sullia, Fazil of Suratkal. Just the murder of rowdy sheeter Harsha from Shivamoga and Praveen Nettaru is glorified,” PFI state secretary AK Ashraf told reporters at a press meet here.

    He said the preliminary investigation conducted by the local police into Harsh’s murder revealed that it was a fallout of a gang war while Praveen’s murder was due to local communal enmity. However, he alleged that Sangh Parivar activists were involved directly in the murder cases of Muslim youths in the state and accused the BJP government of following a biased approach.

    Ashraf further alleged that there was a larger conspiracy behind handing over only the murder cases of BJP workers to NIA. “It is clear that they have misused NIA. A Muslim youth accused in the recent stabbing incident in Shivamoga also has been booked under UAPA, which is an example of how the BJP is misusing investigative agencies like the NIA,” he said.

    Ashraf termed the NIA raids on the houses and offices of the leaders of Muslim organisations as misuse of constitutional institutions and harmful to democracy.

    “The BJP government has been executing massive campaigns against its staunch ideological opponent – PDI – to cover up its administrative failures. But so far it has not been able to provide legal evidence against the constitutionally functioning PFI. We cannot be intimated by such threats. The BJP government should immediately stop targetting Muslim leaders using NIA failing which the organisation will launch legal and democratic struggles across the state,” he threatened.

  • Two Idgah grounds: Ganesh festival on at Hubballi, not in Bengaluru

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI/BENGALURU: Two petitions opposing permission to hold Ganesh Chaturthi festival at two Idgah grounds in Karnataka drew two different rulings on Tuesday. While the Supreme Court disallowed the use of the Idgah Maidan in Bengaluru’s Chamarajpet for the Ganesh festival, the Karnataka High Court in a late night sitting refused to stay the municipality permission to the Vinakaya event in Hubballi.

    A Supreme Court bench of justices Indira Banerjee, A S Oka and M M Sundresh asked both the parties Karnataka State Board of Auqaf, Central Muslim Association of Karnataka and the state of Karnataka to maintain status quo. “Maintain status quo for some days. You can hold your pooja somewhere else,” Justice Indira Banerjee said.

    “200 years, whatever was not held, so maintain the status quo. 200 years it has not been done. No Ganesh festival on this land,” Justice Oka added. Earlier in the day, since a two-judge bench of justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia was divided on the matter, it referred the case to Chief Justice of India U U Lalit. The CJI constituted the three-judge bench after senior advocate Dushyant Dave made an urgent mention, saying if the matter is not heard on Tueday itself, status quo of 200 years there will be disturbed.

    The Hubballi case was heard by HC judge Ashok S Kinagi at 10 pm. In his interim order, he said the Chamarajpet and Hubbali cases were dissimilar, as the former was a title suit, while the latter plot belonged to the Dharwad municipality. Besides, the Hubballi land was not covered under the Places of Worship Act, 1991, he added.

    NEW DELHI/BENGALURU: Two petitions opposing permission to hold Ganesh Chaturthi festival at two Idgah grounds in Karnataka drew two different rulings on Tuesday. While the Supreme Court disallowed the use of the Idgah Maidan in Bengaluru’s Chamarajpet for the Ganesh festival, the Karnataka High Court in a late night sitting refused to stay the municipality permission to the Vinakaya event in Hubballi.

    A Supreme Court bench of justices Indira Banerjee, A S Oka and M M Sundresh asked both the parties Karnataka State Board of Auqaf, Central Muslim Association of Karnataka and the state of Karnataka to maintain status quo. “Maintain status quo for some days. You can hold your pooja somewhere else,” Justice Indira Banerjee said.

    “200 years, whatever was not held, so maintain the status quo. 200 years it has not been done. No Ganesh festival on this land,” Justice Oka added. Earlier in the day, since a two-judge bench of justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia was divided on the matter, it referred the case to Chief Justice of India U U Lalit. The CJI constituted the three-judge bench after senior advocate Dushyant Dave made an urgent mention, saying if the matter is not heard on Tueday itself, status quo of 200 years there will be disturbed.

    The Hubballi case was heard by HC judge Ashok S Kinagi at 10 pm. In his interim order, he said the Chamarajpet and Hubbali cases were dissimilar, as the former was a title suit, while the latter plot belonged to the Dharwad municipality. Besides, the Hubballi land was not covered under the Places of Worship Act, 1991, he added.

  • 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.