Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Students challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict upholding a ban of hijab in educational institutions where a dress code is in force told the Supreme Court on Thursday that wearing of hijab and ‘namam’ was an innocent display of faith.
However, wearing an orange shawl was a belligerent display of religious jingoism, they said.
The students’ counsel, senior advocate Devdat Kamat also submitted before the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta & Sudhanshu Dhulia that the wearing of the headscarf was a part of religious belief. This came under protection from Article 19 (1) (a) (right to freedom of speech and expression) and article 21(right to life and personal liberty).
He said the state could not restrict a religious practice unless it affected public order or fell foul of morality or public health.
“The argument of the state is if I wear hijab, other students will wear orange shawl. Wearing an orange shawl isn’t, I think, an innocent display of faith but it’s a belligerent display of religious jingoism. Article 25 doesn’t protect that. Article 25 protects an innocent display of faith.
Namam yes, Rudraksha yes, tilak yes and hijab yes. Wearing of the orange shawl is not a bona fide practice,” said Kamat. He represents petitioner Aishat Shifa who was banned from entering her classroom wearing hijab.
The court hearing arguments said that it was “not very fair” to compare the practices in Sikhism as they are well ingrained in the culture of the country.
The apex court asked the petitioners not to draw a parallel between Muslim and Sikh religious practices.
The apex court observed the five Ks in Sikhism — Kesh, Kara, Kanga, Kaccha and Kirpan — are well established.
The top court referred to Article 25 of the Constitution and said it provides for the carrying of Kirpan by Sikhs. Article 25 of the Constitution deals with freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.
“Don’t compare these practices because they have been recognised for over 100 years,” the bench said.
Advocate Nizam Pasha, arguing for one of the petitioners, said Article 25 mentions only Kirpan and not the other Ks.
“What we are saying is please do not draw any parity with Sikhism. That is all. That is what we are saying,” the bench said.
Several pleas have been filed in the top court against the March 15 verdict of the high court holding that wearing of hijab is not a part of the essential religious practice which can be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.
The high court had dismissed the pleas filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom.
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 and not a display of religious jingoism.
Also in top court
Bilkis: Hearing on remission today
The SC will hear today a PIL challenging remission granted to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case. A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna will hear the case.
Earlier, a bench headed by the then CJI NV Ramana had sought response from the Centre and State of Gujarat in the PIL and also asked the petitioner to implead the 11 convicts and sought their response within 2 weeks.
The bench said that it was only concerned whether the remission granted was in accordance with law or not. Activists in the petition had sought for production and setting aside of the remission.
EWS quota: Issues for adjudication fixed
The SC on Thursday fixed three broad issues for adjudication arising from the pleas challenging the Centre’s decision to grant 10% reservation to EWS in admissions and jobs. It will also decide whether the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act breached the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution by allowing the state to make such special provisions.
A five-judge Constitution bench said the three issues suggested by Attorney General K K Venugopal for the decision “broadly” covered all the aspects relating to the petitions on the constitutional validity of the decision to grant the reservation.
Madras HC CJ now head of SAFEMA tribunal
The President of India on Thursday appointed Madras High Court Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari as the Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act (SAFEMA) for a period of four years or till attaining the age of seventy years or until further orders, whichever is earlier in terms of Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 read with Tribunal Reforms Act 2021.
Justice Bhandari is to take office within 30 days of receiving the order copy. Justice Bhandari who was appointed the Chief Justice of Madras High Court on 14 February 2022.
NEW DELHI: Students challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict upholding a ban of hijab in educational institutions where a dress code is in force told the Supreme Court on Thursday that wearing of hijab and ‘namam’ was an innocent display of faith.
However, wearing an orange shawl was a belligerent display of religious jingoism, they said.
The students’ counsel, senior advocate Devdat Kamat also submitted before the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta & Sudhanshu Dhulia that the wearing of the headscarf was a part of religious belief. This came under protection from Article 19 (1) (a) (right to freedom of speech and expression) and article 21(right to life and personal liberty).
He said the state could not restrict a religious practice unless it affected public order or fell foul of morality or public health.
“The argument of the state is if I wear hijab, other students will wear orange shawl. Wearing an orange shawl isn’t, I think, an innocent display of faith but it’s a belligerent display of religious jingoism. Article 25 doesn’t protect that. Article 25 protects an innocent display of faith.
Namam yes, Rudraksha yes, tilak yes and hijab yes. Wearing of the orange shawl is not a bona fide practice,” said Kamat. He represents petitioner Aishat Shifa who was banned from entering her classroom wearing hijab.
The court hearing arguments said that it was “not very fair” to compare the practices in Sikhism as they are well ingrained in the culture of the country.
The apex court asked the petitioners not to draw a parallel between Muslim and Sikh religious practices.
The apex court observed the five Ks in Sikhism — Kesh, Kara, Kanga, Kaccha and Kirpan — are well established.
The top court referred to Article 25 of the Constitution and said it provides for the carrying of Kirpan by Sikhs. Article 25 of the Constitution deals with freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.
“Don’t compare these practices because they have been recognised for over 100 years,” the bench said.
Advocate Nizam Pasha, arguing for one of the petitioners, said Article 25 mentions only Kirpan and not the other Ks.
“What we are saying is please do not draw any parity with Sikhism. That is all. That is what we are saying,” the bench said.
Several pleas have been filed in the top court against the March 15 verdict of the high court holding that wearing of hijab is not a part of the essential religious practice which can be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.
The high court had dismissed the pleas filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom.
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 and not a display of religious jingoism.
Also in top court
Bilkis: Hearing on remission today
The SC will hear today a PIL challenging remission granted to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case. A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna will hear the case.
Earlier, a bench headed by the then CJI NV Ramana had sought response from the Centre and State of Gujarat in the PIL and also asked the petitioner to implead the 11 convicts and sought their response within 2 weeks.
The bench said that it was only concerned whether the remission granted was in accordance with law or not. Activists in the petition had sought for production and setting aside of the remission.
EWS quota: Issues for adjudication fixed
The SC on Thursday fixed three broad issues for adjudication arising from the pleas challenging the Centre’s decision to grant 10% reservation to EWS in admissions and jobs. It will also decide whether the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act breached the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution by allowing the state to make such special provisions.
A five-judge Constitution bench said the three issues suggested by Attorney General K K Venugopal for the decision “broadly” covered all the aspects relating to the petitions on the constitutional validity of the decision to grant the reservation.
Madras HC CJ now head of SAFEMA tribunal
The President of India on Thursday appointed Madras High Court Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari as the Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act (SAFEMA) for a period of four years or till attaining the age of seventy years or until further orders, whichever is earlier in terms of Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 read with Tribunal Reforms Act 2021.
Justice Bhandari is to take office within 30 days of receiving the order copy. Justice Bhandari who was appointed the Chief Justice of Madras High Court on 14 February 2022.
