New Delhi: A two-judge Supreme Court bench on Thursday delivered a split verdict in the Karnataka hijab ban case, directing that the matter be listed before the Chief Justice of India to refer it to a larger bench.
Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the appeal against the order of the Karnataka High Court, which had dismissed petitions filed by Muslim girls challenging the state government’s order which barred them from wearing hijab in pre-university colleges. was banned. The girls insisted that it was their right to wear the hijab inside classrooms.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, however, set aside the order of the Karnataka government. referring to the Bijo Emmanuel case Which revolved around the national anthem, he said, adding that the current issue was “completely covered” in the 1986 verdict.
In the Emmanuel case, three school children were suspended after refusing to sing the national anthem because it was against “the principles of their religious belief”. The top court had termed the suspension as unconstitutional.
ThePrint explains the landmark judgment of the apex court and why it came about in the hijab ban case.
background
Feather July 26, 1985three school children in Kottayam of Kerala , Bindu Mol, Bindu and Bijo Emmanuel , He was suspended after he refused to sing the national anthem. During the morning meeting the students stood silently and said that singing the national anthem was against the religious belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are “an association of people who consider a literal interpretation of the Bible to be fundamental to proper religious beliefs”.
VJ Emmanuel, father of three children, filed a writ petition on his behalf in the Kerala High Court, saying the suspension violates the fundamental rights of children under Article 19(1)(a) (right to freedom of expression) and Article 21. Is. Constitution’s right to life or personal liberty),
The HC dismissed the case saying that nothing in the national anthem was capable of hurting anyone’s religious beliefs, following which Emmanuel went to the Supreme Court.
Read also: Discriminatory to compulsory religious practice – what appellant, state told SC in hijab case
‘Strange or bizarre… Honesty of beliefs beyond question’
Supreme Court in August 1986 Justice O. A two-judge bench of Chinnappa Reddy and MM Dutt heard the appeal against the order of the Kerala High Court. Writing on behalf of the bench, Justice Reddy said that even though some religious beliefs may seem “strange or bizarre”, the sincerity of the “beliefs” was beyond question.
The court said the test was whether a belief was “actually and honestly held as part of the profession or practice of religion”. It was assumed that the children “really and sincerely” believed in their religious belief.
The top court said the question was not whether the national anthem had hurt the religious sentiments of anyone, but whether their faith allowed them to stand for the national anthem.
It said, “The students who are Witnesses do not sing the national anthem, although they do stand on such occasions to show their respect for the national anthem.” “They avoid actual singing only because of their sincere belief and conviction that their religion does not permit them to engage in any ritual except that it be in prayer to their Lord Yahweh.”
‘Tradition, Philosophy and Constitution’
Article 25which guarantees freedom of conscience and religion, The top court had said that it is an “article of faith” which recognizes the ability of an “insignificant majority” to find its identity in the Constitution.
Describing it as the “real test of true democracy”, the court had reiterated the principle that Article 25 protects the freedom of conscience and religion of every individual. The judges said that tradition, philosophy and the constitution all preach and practice tolerance. Therefore efforts to reduce tolerance should be resisted.
The court found that the three evictions were unconstitutional under Article 25. The removal violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, it noted.
Read also: ‘Women fighting against hijab in Islamic countries’: Karnataka cites Iran to withdraw its case in SC