The girl students had challenged the Karnataka High Court’s finding in the Supreme Court that wearing hijab is not a compulsory practice in Islam.
The girl students had challenged the Karnataka High Court’s finding in the Supreme Court that wearing hijab is not a compulsory practice in Islam.
The Supreme Court indicated on Wednesday that appeals could be challenged Karnataka High Court Conclusion Whether wearing the hijab is not a required practice in Islam will be listed next week.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana was responding to an oral mention made by advocate Prashant Bhushan, who said the matter was in limbo for months.
The petitions, mostly filed by the affected girl students, raise the question of whether the state can intervene if a student wears a hijab to college without causing any harm to others and under the conviction that it is a part of his religious observance and practice.
Students also bring up the issue whether a woman’s dignity and right to access to education should suffer as her dress code cannot be adjusted by the authorities of an educational institution.
‘Religious freedom is the hallmark of pluralism’
in the Supreme Court SR Bommai case of 1994 observed that “religious freedom is the hallmark of pluralism and inclusivity”. The Constituent Assembly debates how the establishment of a secular state is an act of faith, the responsibility of the majority community to show that they can be generous, fair and just towards others.
The matter was repeatedly mentioned in the court for urgent listing during March and April. The court had assured that they would be listed. However, the appeals are yet to be heard.
This despite the fact that in February, the top court had assured the students of protection of their constitutional rights and intervention at an “appropriate time”.
niha naaz petition
One of the pending petitions filed by Niha Naaz, presented by Anas Tanveer, had raised the issue of Right to Privacy. Ms Naaz had argued that depriving Muslim girls of their education, and thus, punishing them for wearing the hijab in college, was a violation of their right to privacy.
“Freedom of conscience is a part of the right to privacy,” said her petition.
Any infringement of his right to privacy must be based on a lawful law, a legitimate state interest, and the law must be proportionate. He said that no law has prohibited the hijab.
Ms Naz argued that the High Court ruling had created a “duality between freedom of religion and freedom of conscience”.
“This freedom would include the freedom to legally express one’s identity in the manner of one’s choice,” the student said, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the Navtej Singh Jauhar case.
He said students like him had expected the high court to set aside the February 5 state government order directing college development committees to prescribe uniforms for them.
He termed the state government’s order as a “ridiculous attack” on Muslim students wearing hijab under the guise of achieving secularism and equality on the basis of uniform.
He said that the state cannot prescribe uniforms for the students. The law did not require a student to be punished for not wearing a particular uniform.