Hijab ban in classroom: Another plea in Supreme Court challenges Karnataka HC verdict

News Network
March 17, 2022

Bengaluru, Mar 17: A fresh plea was filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict which dismissed the petitions seeking permission to wear a Hijab inside the classroom saying Hijab is not a part of the essential religious practice in the Islamic faith.

The petition has been filed by one Sajeeda Begum, who had also sought to get herself impleaded as a party in the proceedings related to Hijab ban before the Karnataka High Court.

The top court on Wednesday said that it would list other pleas on the issue for hearing after Holi vacation.

When senior lawyer Sanjay Hedge, appearing for a student, mentioned the plea for urgent listing on March 16, Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana had said, “Others also mentioned, let us see...we will list (the petitions) after the vacation. Give us time.” Begum, in her fresh appeal filed through lawyer Talha Abdul Rahman and others, said that the teenage girls covering themselves modestly while going to receive education pose no threat to “public order." “In fact, the threat to law and order is manufactured by hecklers who are to be controlled by the State. The impugned government order would affect young girls' minds forever,” the appeal said.

The plea said that the high court failed to apply the tests applicable to restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the fundamental right of privacy without reasons.

The high court treated dress code or uniform prescribed as not involving the issue of breach of the fundamental right, without appreciating that no such uniform has yet been prescribed that takes away the right to wear hijab.

Prior to this, several other pleas including a Muslim student, who was one of the petitioners before the high court, had moved the apex court 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 had 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 had said.

In one of the pleas filed in the top court, the petitioner 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 high court had maintained that the government has the 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 that 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.

Comments

Fredrick pinto
 - 
Saturday, 26 Mar 2022

Vacant land not cleaned for many years. Hence garbage is thrown, so many wild plants, trees, grass growing, dangerous snakes are there. please ask them to clean at the earliest. Residents it is a problem also for kids

Contact person is Fredrick
HIs phone no: 72596 20959

Fredrick pinto
 - 
Saturday, 26 Mar 2022

Vacant land not cleaned for many years. Hence garbage is thrown, so many wild plants, trees, grass growing, dangerous snakes are there. please ask them to clean at the earliest. Residents it is a problem also for kids

Contact person is Fredrick
HIs phone no: 72596 20959

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
September 17,2024

Kalaburagi: Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara on Tuesday said that alleged role of "outsiders" belonging to the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) in the violence at Nagamangala will be examined and action taken based on the probe report.

Clashes broke out between two groups during a Ganesh idol procession in the town in Mandya district following which mobs went on a rampage targeting several shops and vehicles leading to tension on September 11 night.

"Everything will be examined, investigation will be done, on getting the report we will decide. We will not protect anyone, and unnecessarily no one will be punished. We will look into the facts based on the inquiry report and take action accordingly," Parameshwara told reporters here.

He noted that two officials -- Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector -- have already been suspended, and added that further action will be taken based on the report.

The Minister said the government has taken the Nagamangala violence seriously and there is no question of taking such incidents lightly. "BJP makes such allegations, but we too have responsibility, we don't take anything lightly."

On allegations that "outsiders" were involved in the violence, Parameshwara said if inquiry reveals complicity of such elements, it would be examined and action taken accordingly.

Regarding claims that those belonging to the banned PFI were involved, he said: "It will be known from the probe."

On demand for a National Investigation Agency (NIA) probe into Nagamangala violence by BJP which alleged "failure" of state's home department, Parameshwara said: "they keep saying such things, we will not listen to all that."

According to police, an argument had broken out between two groups, when the procession by devotees from Badri Koppalu village reached a place of worship on September 11, and some miscreants hurled stones, which escalated the situation.

Following the clashes between the two groups, a few shops were vandalised and goods torched and vehicles set on fire, they added.

To allegations from some BJP leaders that the party MLA Munirathna was arrested "hurriedly", Parameshwara said, police acted after the complaint was given, "what's wrong in that?"

Munirathna, who represents Rajarajeshwari Nagar Assembly segment here, was picked up from Nangli village in Kolar’s Mulbagal on Saturday evening on charges of harassing a Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) contractor for bribe, casteist slurs on a former corporator, and also cheating, criminal intimidation and insulting a woman’s modesty.

Asked about "illegal items" seized from the prison here recently by officials, he said an investigation has begun on this.

When a photo of actor Darshan Thoogudeepa, who was lodged in Parappana Agrahara Prison here, hanging out with other inmates surfaced recently, action was taken based on the probe report and eleven officials were suspended.

"I will look into recent seizures made too and action will be taken; also probe is on at other prisons in the state and action will follow if anything wrong is found," the Minister added.

Police raided the high-security wing of Parappana Agrahara Central Prison here on Saturday and seized smartphones and other illegal goods.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
September 25,2024

SCjudge.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today closed proceedings against Karnataka High Court Judge Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, following his public apology for controversial comments made during court sessions. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, leading a five-judge bench, stated that the decision was made in the interest of justice and the dignity of the judiciary.

Justice Srishananda during a recent court hearing. Justice Srishananda, while addressing a landlord-tenant dispute, referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and made a misogynistic comment involving a woman lawyer. His comments, which went viral on social media, prompted the Supreme Court to seek a report from the Karnataka High Court, which was submitted shortly after the incident.

"No one can call any part of territory of India as 'Pakistan'," Chief Justice Chandrachud said. "It is fundamentally against the territorial integrity of the nation. The answer to sunlight is more sunlight and not to suppress what happens in court. The answer is not to close it down."

The Supreme Court had taken up the case on its own and had sought a report from the Karnataka High Court over the controversial remarks. A five-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, had on September 20 expressed the need for establishing clear guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their remarks in court. 

"Casual observational may indicate personal biases especially when perceived to be directed at a certain gender or community. Thus one must be wary of making patriarchal or misogynistic comments. We express our serious concern about observations on a certain gender or a community and such observations are liable to be construed in a negative light. We hope and trust that the responsibilities entrusted to all stakeholders are discharged without bias and caution," CJI Chandrachud said today. 

The Supreme Court bench said that when social media plays an active role in monitoring and amplifying courtroom proceedings, there is an urgency to ensure judicial commentary aligns with the decorum expected from courts of law.

Videos of Justice Srishanananda were viral on social media.

In one video, he refers to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and in another video he was seen making objectionable comments against a woman lawyer. In the second incident, Justice Srishanananda can be heard telling the woman lawyer that she seemed to know a lot about the "opposition party", so much so that she might be able to reveal the colour of their undergarments.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
September 24,2024

siddaramaiah.jpg

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against Governor Thawarchand Gehlot's decision to sanction the complaint and investigation against him in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam case.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said the facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require an investigation.

The court has also said that the Governor's order approving sanction to investigate against Siddaramaiah under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not suffer from application of mind, instead has abundance of application of mind.

Meanwhile, the court rejected the request made by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi to stay the order of the court. The court has vacated the interim order passed on August 19. In the interim order the trial court was directed not to take any precipitative action against Siddaramaiah. On August 17, Governor had approved sanction under section 17 A  of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS), citing three applications.

The court said the private complainants were justified in registering the complaint and seeking approval from the governor.

Insofar as private complainants seeking sanction under section 17A, the court said the provision nowhere requires only a police officer to seek sanction from a competent authority. The court further said it is in fact the duty of the private complainants to seek such approval.

Earlier, The High Court had completed its hearing in the case on September 12, and reserved its orders. It had also directed a special court in Bengaluru to defer further proceedings and not to take any precipitative action against the Chief Minister.

The case pertains to allegations that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife B M Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru that had higher property value as compared to the location of her land that had been "acquired" by MUDA.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.