From Our Bureau
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to list pleas challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict against wearing of Hijab, with Chief Justice of India N V Ramana stating to “wait for two days” to tackle the problem in his home state.
The issue was mentioned by senior advocate Meenaksi Arora, appearing for one of the petitioners, seeking an urgent hearing before a Bench that also constituted Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli.
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 high court had dismissed the petitions filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom. 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 high court has failed to note that the right to wear hijab comes under the ambit of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the freedom of conscience forms a part of the right to privacy,” it said.
The high court had maintained that the government has the power to issue impugned order dated February 5, and no case is made out for its invalidation. It had banned wearing dresses that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in schools and colleges, which the Muslim girls had challenged in the high court.
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.
