advertisement
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 13 July agreed to hear next week a batch of pleas challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state.
“The girls are losing out on studies and have been facing difficulties,” Bhushan said.
The bench said, “Two benches are not functioning. So, we have to re-distribute. It will be listed sometime next week before an appropriate bench.”
Prior to this, the appeals against the 15 March verdict of the high court, which had dismissed petitions seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom, were mentioned for urgent hearing on 26 April as well.
Several petitions have been filed in the apex court against the Karnataka High Court verdict 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 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 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.
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.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)
Published: undefined