NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined requests for urgent listing of pleas against the Karnataka high court’s hijab order that upheld the ban on wearing hijab in educational institutions of the state.
This particular plea was mentioned by senior advocate Devdutt Kamat before the bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana. He said the matter needs to be heard soon since exams are approaching in the state. The court said the matter should not be sensationalized and exams are not related to the case.
Several pleas have been filed against the high court order.
”... High Court has failed to note that the right to wear a Hijab is protected as a part of the right to conscience under Article 25 of the Constitution. It is submitted that since the right to conscience is essentially an individual right, the ‘Essential Religious Practices Test’ ought not to have been applied by the Hon’ble High Court in this instant case,” one of the pleas filed against the HC order reads.
Upholding the government order dated February 5, 2022, banning the hijab in classrooms, a full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justices Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi of the Karnataka High court had pronounced the verdict on a cluster of petitions questioning the order passed by the state government banning the wearing of hijab in classrooms.
The high court bench had also maintained that the government has the power to issue impugned order dated February 5, 2022, and no case is made out for its invalidation. By the said order, the Karnataka government had banned wearing clothes that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in schools and colleges, which the Muslim girls had challenged in the High Court. The bench also rejected the plea to initiate a disciplinary inquiry against the college, its principal, and a teacher.
"In the above circumstances, all these writ petitions being devoid of merits are liable to be and accordingly are dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, all the pending applications fell into insignificance and are accordingly disposed off," the bench had said in its order.