Hijab verdict

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on petitions challenging the Karnataka government's order, prohibiting hijab inside classrooms in pre-university ...

Arguing that hijabwas not an essential religious practice in Islam, the Karnataka High Court had held that the proscription on hijab in classrooms was a reasonable restriction. The matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit who will constitute a new bench to hear the matter. He also proposed dismissing the appeal and upholding the ban on hijab in educational institutions.

Bengaluru (Karnataka) [India], October 13 (ANI): Karnataka government on Thursday said High Court's order upholding the ban on hijab in educational ...

Theban on wearing of hijab in educational institutions of the state remains,' Nagesh said. They are using hijab to split the society." First is whether the appeal should be referred to the Constitution Bench." Following this, the girls sat in protest outside the college over being denied entry. After this, boys of several colleges in Udupi started attending classes wearing saffron scarves. "As a democratic government, we welcome whatever order we have received from the honourable Supreme Court.

Karnataka Hijab ban row: The southern state had banned the wearing of headscarves inside classrooms earlier this year. | Latest News India.

As far as Karnataka is concerned, it is not about the Hijab but a big conspiracy to stop poor girls from minority communities going to schools and getting educated," BK Hariprasad, Congress's leader of opposition in upper house of Karnataka, said. In their homes, they can wear Hijab or anything else but when they come to government schools, it is mandatory to follow the prescribed uniform and this is the government's good opinion." The government has succeeded in its plans that these girls should not get education," he added. In his response, R Ashok, Karnataka’s minister for revenue said: "Whoever comes (attends) government schools, whatever the uniform is they should adhere to it and this is the government rule. "Whatever our rights are in the constitution, freedom of practice and preaching, that should he protected. In that context, we will continue to follow what is currently existing rules (for educational institutions in the state)." Justice Hemant Gupta, in his judgment, backed the BJP government in the state to enforce a uniform mandate. There is a split judgement, so the verdict given by the Karnataka High Court is valid. The matter has now been referred to Chief Justice and there cannot be any restriction against it. He also stressed that his government expected a "better judgement" from the top court even as he "welcomed" the order. The two judges on the bench differed in their opinions. The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a split verdict after hearing the matter, and reserving the order on September 22.

Justice Hemant Gupta, who has upheld the impugned Government Order and the Karnataka High Court judgment whereby the wearing of Hijab was disallowed in ...

Any encroachment of religion in the secular activities is not permissible." The question in my mind is, whether we are making her life difficult". The matter now will be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.

Justice Hemant Gupta proposes to dismiss the appeal, Justice Dhulia allows appeal, says 'ultimately a matter of choice'

I am proposing to dismiss the appeals," Justice Gupta said. It was simply a question of Article 19(1) (a), its applicability and Article 25(1) primarily. And it is ultimately a matter of a choice, nothing more, nothing less," he said. He said he has framed 11 questions in his verdict and answers to them are against the appellants. He read out the 11 questions, which include what is the ambit and scope of the right of freedom of conscience and religion under Article 25 and what is the ambit and scope of right to essential religious practices under Article 25 of the Constitution. "The main thrust of my judgment is that this entire concept of essential religious practices, in my opinion, was not essential for the disposal of the dispute.

Karnataka Hijab Row LIVE Updates: Justice Gupta upheld the Karnataka government circular and dismissed the appeals against the Karnataka High Court judgment ...

“It (wearing of hijab) is a matter of choice, nothing more and nothing less,” said justice Dhulia. After 10 days of marathon hearing, on September 22 the top court had reserved the judgment for Thursday. Majeed Memon, Senior criminal lawyer and NCP leader on Hijab verdict: “In my opinion this matter should be taken to the parliament and resolved there. There are various dimensions to this issue, requests of students on one side, The governments order on other side, and things that happen on national and international level. While delivering the verdict on hijab row, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia referred to the Bijoe Emmanuel case in which three children were suspended from school for not singing the National Anthem. Justice Gupta upheld the Karnataka government circular and dismissed the appeals

Bengaluru (Karnataka) [India], October 13 (ANI): Karnataka government on Thursday said High Court's order upholding the ban on hijab in educational ...

Theban on wearing of hijab in educational institutions of the state remains,’ Nagesh said. Following this, the girls sat in protest outside the college over being denied entry. After this, boys of several colleges in Udupi started attending classes wearing saffron scarves. They are using hijab to split the society.” First is whether the appeal should be referred to the Constitution Bench.” “As a democratic government, we welcome whatever order we have received from the honourable Supreme Court.

On March 15, the high court had dismissed the petitions filed by a section of Muslim students of the Government Pre-University Girls College in Karnataka's ...

While pronouncing the judgement, Justice Dhulia said the high court had taken a wrong path and that wearing Hijab is ultimately “A matter of choice, nothing more, nothing less”. While allowing the appeals against the high court verdict, Justice Dhulia said he has quashed the state government’s February 5, 2022 order which banned wearing clothes that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in schools and colleges. On March 15, the high court had dismissed the petitions filed by a section of Muslim students of the Government Pre-University Girls College in Karnataka’s Udupi seeking permission to wear the hijab inside classrooms, ruling it is not a part of the essential religious practice in Islamic faith. In view of the split verdict, the bench directed that the appeals against the high court verdict be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate larger bench. While Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the appeals against the high court verdict, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia allowed them. [Karnataka](https://www.karnataka.gov.in/english) High Court judgement refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state.

A bench of justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia pronounced the split judgement on the Hijab issue as one upheld the Karnataka HC judgement while the other ...

Karnataka Government Order had directed the Government Schools in Karnataka to abide by the prescribed uniform, and the private schools were directed to mandate a uniform as decided by their Board of Management. "Hence, the Government Order cannot be said to be contrary to the State goal of promoting literacy and education as mandated under the Constitution. "The unfortunate fallout of the hijab restriction would be that we would have denied education to a girl child. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia said that "Under our Constitutional scheme, wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of choice. A bench of justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia pronounced the split judgement on the Hijab issue as one upheld the Karnataka HC judgement while the other set the Karnataka HC order aside. "Religion, which is a private affair, has no meaning in a secular school run by the State.

While Justice Gupta feels that allowing religious symbols in schools can lead to fragmentation, Justice Dhulia thinks that it can sensitise students to ...

"School is the time to learn and lay foundation for the future pursuits in life. Next, he says that asking a pre-university school girl to take off her hijab at the school gate is an invasion on her privacy and dignity and would amount to denial of secular education. Defiance to rules of the school would in fact be antithesis of discipline which cannot be accepted from the students who are yet to attain adulthood. The wearing of hijab is not permitted only during the school time, therefore, the students can wear it everywhere else except in schools. "It is necessary to have discipline in schools. The Constitutional goal of fraternity would be defeated if the students are permitted to carry their apparent religious symbols with them to the classroom". This is the time when they should learn not to be alarmed by our diversity but to rejoice and celebrate this diversity. This is the time when they must realise that in diversity is our strength". Regarding the concept of discipline in classrooms as well, both the judges have divergent perspectives. [ the hijab case judgment ](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/hijab-ban-supreme-court-split-verdict-karnataka-religion-fundamental-right-article-25-211510)of the Supreme Court is the contrasting, if not diametrically opposite, views expressed by Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia regarding the concepts of fraternity, diversity and discipline. Before starting his analysis of this issue, he says, "Our Constitution is also a document of Trust. This is the time to foster in them sensitivity, empathy and understanding towards different religions,languages and cultures.

With the Karnataka hijab case seeing a split verdict from a two-judge Supreme Court bench, here is what happens after such verdicts.

The larger Bench to which a split verdict goes can be a three-judge Bench of the High Court, or an appeal can be preferred before the Supreme Court. A split verdict is passed when the Bench cannot decide one way or the other in a case, either by a unanimous decision or by a majority verdict. In the case of the hijab verdict, the CJI, who is the ‘master of the roster’, will constitute a new, larger Bench to hear the matter.

Karnataka Hijab Row: कर्नाटक हाई कोर्ट ने राज्य के शैक्षणिक संस्थानों में हिजाब पहनने पर ...

बाद में ये मामला कर्नाटक हाई कोर्ट (Karnataka High Court) में पहुंचा और कोर्ट ने शैक्षणिक संस्थानों में हिजाब (Hijab) पहनने पर बैन लगाते हुए राज्य सरकार का आदेश बरकरार रखा था. हरियाणा के गृह मंत्री अनिल विज ने इस भी मामले पर बड़ा दिया और कहा कि पुरुषों को अपने मन को मजबूत करना चाहिए और महिलाओं को हिजाब से मुक्त करना चाहिए. कर्नाटक के शिक्षा मंत्री बीसी नागेश ने कहा कि कर्नाटक हाई कोर्ट का स्कूल और कॉलेज परिसरों में हिजाब पर राज्य सरकार के प्रतिबंध को बरकरार रखने का आदेश इस मुद्दे पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट के विभाजित फैसले के बाद भी लागू रहेगा. कांग्रेस के राज्यसभा सांसद जयराम रमेश ने कहा कि, "हिजाब मामले पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट के बंटे हुए फैसले का मतलब है कि यह मामला आगे भी उस कोर्ट का ध्यान आकर्षित करता रहेगा. ऑल इंडिया मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड ने हिजाब मामले में कोर्ट का खंडित फैसला आने के बाद कहा कि कर्नाटक सरकार को शिक्षण संस्थानों में हिजाब पहनने पर रोक से जुड़े अपने आदेश को वापस लेना चाहिए ताकि यह पूरा विवाद खत्म हो सके. कर्नाटक (Karnataka) राज्य के एक कॉलेज में हिजाब पहनने वाली छात्राओं को प्रवेश करने से रोक दिया था. हरियाणा के गृह मंत्री ने ट्वीट में कहा, ‘‘जिन पुरुषों का महिलाओं को देखकर मन मचलता था उन्होंने ही महिलाओं को हिजाब डालने के लिए मजबूर किया. भारतीय जनता पार्टी (बीजेपी) की ओर से कहा गया कि वह स्कूलों में वर्दी के अलावा हिजाब या किसी भी अन्य पोशाक का समर्थन नहीं करेगी, और कहा कि धार्मिक स्वतंत्रता का इस्तेमाल "अलगाववाद" को बढ़ावा देने के लिए नहीं किया जा सकता है. मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड के महासचिव मौलाना खालिद सैफुल्लाह रहमानी ने ये भी कहा कि न्यायमूर्ति सुधांशु धूलिया का आदेश संविधान और व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता के सिद्धातों के अनुरूप है. सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कर्नाटक के शैक्षणिक संस्थानों में हिजाब पहनने पर लगा प्रतिबंध हटाने से इनकार करने वाले कर्नाटक हाई कोर्ट के फैसले को चुनौती देने वाली याचिकाओं पर गुरुवार को खंडित फैसला सुनाया. बीसी नागेश ने कहा कि ऐसे समय में जब दुनिया भर में हिजाब और बुर्का के खिलाफ आंदोलन हो रहा है और महिलाओं की स्वतंत्रता चर्चा का विषय है, कर्नाटक सरकार को एक बेहतर निर्णय की उम्मीद थी जो शिक्षा प्रणाली में एकरूपता लाता, लेकिन एक विभाजित फैसला आया. हिजाब प्रतिबंध का दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण परिणाम ये होगा कि हम एक बच्ची को शिक्षा से वंचित कर देंगे."

Hijab Case Verdict: कर्नाटक के शैक्षणिक संस्थानों में हिजाब पहनने को लेकर करीब एक साल से जारी ...

शैक्षणिक संस्थानों में हिजाब पहनने को लेकर ये पूरा विवाद कर्नाटक से शुरू हुआ था. हालांकि, जस्टिस धूलिया ने माना कि ERP में उतरने की जरूरत नहीं थी और हाईकोर्ट ने गलत तरीका अपनाया है. उन्होंने कहा कि हिजाब पहनना इस्लाम के तहत आवश्यक धार्मिक काम (ERP- Essential Religious Practice) का हिस्सा नहीं है और राज्य सरकार का आदेश शिक्षा तक पहुंच के उद्देश्य को पूरा करता है. हालांकि, उन्होंने फैसले के खिलाफ अपील की अनुमति दी और कर्नाटक सरकार के आदेश को खारिज कर दिया, जबकि जस्टिस धूलिया ने कहा कि जस्टिस गुप्ता ने कहा कि "फैसले में मतभेद है, मैंने अपीलकर्ता के खिलाफ अपना फैसला सुनाया है. हालांकि, इस फैसले के बावजूद किसी नतीजे तक नहीं पहुंचा जा सका क्योंकि सुप्रीम कोर्ट के दोनों जजों की राय इस मामले पर अलग-अलग है.

हरियाणा के गृह मंत्री अनिल विज ने गुरुवार को हिजाब विवाद पर कहा है कि पुरुषों को अपने ...

कर्नाटक के शिक्षा मंत्री बीसी नागेश ने इस फैसले पर कहा कि हम सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के ...

आइए इस सवाल का जवाब जानते हैं इस खबर के माध्यम से... लेटेस्ट अपडेट्स के लिए फॉलो करें सुप्रीम कोर्ट में आज 13 अक्तूबर, 2022 को कर्नाटक हिजाब विवाद पर फैसला सुनाया गया। कर्नाटक के शैक्षणिक संस्थानों में हिजाब के साथ प्रवेश पर बैन के इस मामले में जस्टिस धूलिया और जस्टिस हमेंत गुप्ता की बेंच ने दोनों पक्ष का तर्क सुनते हुए 10 दिन की सुनवाई के बाद कोर्ट ने 22 सितंबर को इस मामले पर फैसला सुरक्षित रख लिया था। आज सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने फैसला तो सुनाया लेकिन दोनों ही जजों की राय मामले पर अलग-अलग सामने आई है। जस्टिस हेमंत गुप्ता ने इस मामले में कर्नाटक हाईकोर्ट के फैसले को सही मानते हुए बैन के खिलाफ अपील को खारिज कर दिया, वहीं दूसरे जज सुधांशु धूलिया की पीठ ने उनसे उलट राय जाहिर की है। ऐसे में अब यह सवाल उठता है कि हिजाब विवाद में आगे क्या होगा?

The All India Bar Association has sought referral of the Hijab case to a larger bench of Minimum 5 Judges including one Muslim Judge after the split ...

Furthermore, considering that Justice S Abdul Nazeer is the only Muslim judge currently in the Supreme Court, Dr Aggarwala has stated, "If Justice S. Justice Dhulia took a diametrically opposite view and struck down the High Court verdict". Dr Aggarwala in his letter pointed out that the then Chief Justice of India N.V.

I was expecting a unanimous judgement in favour of girls going to school in Karnataka wearing hijab,' Owaisi said.

Notably, the high court on March 15 had dismissed the petitions filed by a section of Muslim students of the Government Pre-University Girls College in Karnataka's Udupi, seeking permission to wear the hijab inside classrooms. The judgment by one of the judges from SC was in favour of hijab,” Owaisi said. Girls of Karnataka are wearing hijab because Allah has asked them to do so in Quran.

While pronouncing the spilt verdict on the hijab matter, Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia had dissenting opinions.

"One of the best sights in India today, is of a girl child leaving for her school in the morning, with her school bag on her back. Justice Dhulia was of the opinion that India is a land of diverse cultures, and what better way and age to introduce students with the myriad cultures. This case therefore has also to be seen in the perspective of the challenges already faced by a girl child in reaching her school". Justice Dhulia says, "that a girl child already has a lot of problems that she faces in the rural India. Justice Dhulia kept the focus on a girl rather than a student. Is it too much to ask in a democracy?

The split verdict means that the matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India for further directions — it will likely go to a larger bench. And ...

Justice Dhulia said what was laid down by the Supreme Court in its August 1986 decision in the Bijoe Emmanuel case (Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors) squarely covers the issue. was not at all relevant in the determination of the dispute before the Court”. Hence, restrictions on freedom of religion and conscience have to be read conjointly along with other provisions of Part III as laid down under the restrictions of Article 25(1)” It is open to the students to carry their faith in a school which permits them to wear hijab or any other mark, may be tilak, which can be identified to a person holding a particular religious belief but the State is within its jurisdiction to direct that the apparent symbols of religious beliefs cannot be carried to school maintained by the State from the State funds. The sectarian approach that certain students will carry their religious beliefs to secular schools run by the State would be antithesis of the mandate of the statute. The split verdict means that the matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India for further directions — it will likely go to a larger bench.

A two-judge bench of the top court delivered a split verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the Karnataka high court judgement refusing to lift a ban on ...

A two-judge bench of the top court delivered a split verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the Karnataka high court judgement refusing to lift a ban on hijab in educational institutes in the state. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh said the split verdict means the matter will continue to attract the apex court’s attention. “Whatever our rights are in the Constitution, freedom of practice and preaching, that should be protected. Whoever comes (to) government schools, whatever the uniform is, they should adhere to it,” he added. “The ban on hijab will continue. So, we will have to wait till the final verdict,” Basavaraj Bommai, the chief minister of Karnataka, said.

कर्नाटक हिजाब विवाद पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने आज अपना फैसला सुनाया है. सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ...

दरअसल कर्नाटक हाई कोर्ट ने प्री-यूनिवर्सिटी कॉलेजों में कक्षाओं के अंदर हिजाब पहनने पर रोक लगाई गई थी. Owaisi on Hijab Verdict: सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने हिजाब पर अपना फैसला सुनाया है. ख्याल रहे कि हिजाब विवाद पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अपना फैसला सुनाया है. उन्होंने कर्नाटक हाई कोर्ट के फैसले को खारिज कर दिया. [zeesalaam.in](https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/zeesalaam) पर विजिट करें. फिलहाल हिजाब पर पुराना फैसला जारी रहेगा. सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले पर AIMIM चीफ असदुद्दीन ओवैसी की प्रतिक्रिया सामने आई है. हिजाब पर दो जजों का अलग-अलग फैसला है. हिजाब विवाद के मामले को चीफ जस्टिस के पास भेजा गया है. वो गलत था." उन्होंने कुरान के गलत ट्रांस्लेशन का इस्तेमाल किया." Owaisi on Hijab Verdict: कर्नाटक हिजाब विवाद पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने आज अपना फैसला सुनाया है.

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a split verdict on the hijab ban in Karnataka's educational institutions, with one judge holding permitting a ...

Justice Gupta noted that some of the appellants had also made a comparison with the rights of the followers of the Sikh faith by arguing that since ‘kirpan’ was allowed in terms of Explanation I to Article 25, therefore, the students who wanted to wear hijab should be equally protected. Justice Dhulia further said the “unfortunate fallout of the hijab restriction would be that we would have denied education to a girl child”. In his verdict, Justice Gupta said the arguments advanced by the counsel for some of the appellants that this matter involved a substantial question of law and should be referred to a five-judge Bench was “not tenable”. Writing a separate 73-page judgment, Justice Dhulia said, “By asking the girls to take off their hijab before they enter the school gates is first an invasion of their privacy, then it is an attack on their dignity, and then ultimately it is a denial to them of secular education.” Justice Gupta, who was heading the Bench and wrote a contrary verdict running into 133-pages, answered the 11 questions framed by him for consideration in the matter and said the constitutional goal of fraternity will be defeated if the students were permitted to carry their apparent religious symbols with them to the classroom. Wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of choice.

Row was sparked by decision of Government Pre-University College in Udupi that denied entry to headscarf-wearing girls.

The hijab row was sparked by the decision of the Government Pre-University College in Udupi that denied entry to hijab-wearing girls in late December 2021. In light of that, I had expected the Supreme Court judgment may uphold the Karnataka High Court verdict,” he added. So we are going to follow the rules which are framed according to the Karnataka Education Act,” he said, alluding to the February 5 order empowering schools to prescribe uniforms.

Javed Anand writes: Why it leaves me, a Left-Liberal, at odds with me, a Progressive Muslim.

In the event that the March order of the Karnataka High Court is struck down by a larger bench of the Supreme Court in the coming period, we might ponder on what students committed to Hindutva politics will make of the right to choose verdict. Justice Dhulia has observed: “The foremost question in my mind was the education of the girl child. The rise of Hindutva in the area has seen a parallel mushrooming of the recently-banned Muslim girls/women are now making an “individual choice” to wear the hijab because “we have been (newly) taught that God wants us to wear it”! In support of those Muslim girls in India who choose to wear the hijab to school contrary to the uniform prescribed by the management. “It is a matter of choice, nothing more and nothing less,” opines Justice Dhulia.

हिजाब मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट के दो जजों की बेंच की राय मूल अधिकारों के मुद्दे पर एक ...

Following a split verdict by the Supreme Court on Thursday on the petitions challenging the hijab ban in the southern state of Karnataka at the educational ...

After this, boys of several colleges in Udupi started attending classes wearing saffron scarves. Following this, the girls sat in protest outside the college over being denied entry. First is whether the appeal should be referred to the Constitution Bench." One judge has rejected the plea of petitioners and another judge has nullified the order of the Karnataka High court. They are using hijab to split the society." It depends on what CJI will decide on the matter.

The Supreme Court of India's verdict on the head-scarf case should not lead to denial of education rights.

The issue is why a head-scarf that does not interfere with the uniform cannot be a matter of choice without being a target of hostile discrimination; and whether the hijab is going to be used to deny girl students their right to education. In the prevailing political climate, the Karnataka government mandating either a prescribed uniform or any dress that was “in the interest of unity, equality and public order” was seen as majoritarian assertion in the garb of enforcing secular norms, equality and discipline in educational institutions. [You can read this editorial in Hindi here.](https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/hindi/hindi-editorial-on-split-over-hijab-on-the-supreme-court-verdict/article66009053.ece) Justice Dhulia represents this viewpoint when he asserts that discipline should not be at the cost of freedom, when he wonders why a girl child wearing a hijab should be a public order problem and declares that ‘reasonable accommodation’ of this practice will be a sign of a mature society. Justice Gupta, on the other hand, has foregrounded equality and discipline as the essential hallmarks of a secular institution in a diverse country, and rules that the Government violates no constitutional principle when enforcing a prescribed uniform. Justice Hemant Gupta, rejecting the idea that hijab could be worn in addition to the uniform, has held that permitting one community to wear religious symbols to class will be the antithesis of secularism.