September 30, 2022

SC hears hijab controversy, ban should be equal for all: Advocate Meenakshi

Lawyer Arora said that if we impose restrictions, it should be equal for all. There should be no discrimination. In such a situation, the court should look into the discrimination that has been done by the government order in Karnataka.

Hearing in the Supreme Court on hijab controversy

Image credit source: PTI

Supreme Court Released in Karnataka The Hijab Controversy The hearing is ongoing. During the hearing, senior advocate Dushyant Dave told the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia that they should not have heard the matter and should have referred the matter to a larger bench. Dave said that the bench could not restrict him to present his arguments till the stipulated time. At the same time, he rejected the court’s request to end the hearing today.

Senior advocate Colin Goslvis also presented his arguments during the hearing. He said, whether hijab is a necessary tradition or not, it is a religious tradition. It is protected in the Muslim religion and under Article 25.

Prohibition is equal for all: Advocate Arora

Senior lawyer Meenakshi Arora does hijab in any way harm public order, morality? Instead you exclude children from school. You marginalize them. We do not teach children religious tolerance. Arora said, “The state government does not have the power to pass government orders against the central law. Central schools allow hijab despite state government orders All I can say is, if it is in accordance with the law, then I will say that the government order is wrong.”

Arora said that if we impose restrictions, it should be equal for all. There should be no discrimination and international procedures should be followed. In such a situation, the court should look into the discrimination that has been done by the government order in Karnataka.

No one barred from debate: SC

Advocate Shoaib Alam said, “I am answering the question that why there is a debate in the High Court about essential religious practices? For that we will see the government’s instructions. I am quoting three judgments here.” He said that these judgments mentioned essential religious practices. So we had a real need to argue.

“But there’s no stopping you from arguing what you’re arguing now,” the court said.

Senior advocate Abdul Majeed Dar, who claimed to be a Quranic expert, argued that the surah of the Quran states that it is necessary for women to cover their heads in Islam. It is important for everyone to believe. It cannot be said that there was no penalty for disobedience, so compliance was not required. The High Court erred in its judgment. He said, on the Day of Judgment it will be seen who has done good and who has done wrong and will be punished accordingly.

Shoaib Alam said, on one hand I have the right to education, that too secular education, on the other hand I have got the right to privacy, culture etc. in Article 21. The effect of the government’s directive is – I will teach you, you give me your right to privacy. The state cannot ask me to surrender my right to privacy, he said. Advocate Alam presented the statistics of Muslim girls in schools before the bench.

Ukil Alam said that his attendance in higher secondary is the least. 19.8% of Muslims never go to school. Next closely followed by Christians at 12.7%. Currently the school has the lowest enrollment rate of Muslims. Alam said that a total of 24.8% of Muslim girls were never enrolled in school.

Is there any authentic information: SC

Justice Dhulia said, there is a difference in higher secondary. We would appreciate it if you could show us your competitive drop-out rate.

Earlier on Wednesday, the court questioned whether there was any authentic information about students dropping out of educational institutions in Karnataka due to the hijab ban and the High Court’s decision on the matter.

Counsel appearing for one of the petitioners raised the issue of school dropout of students, especially girl students. A bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia said, “Do you have verifiable information that 20, 30, 40 or 50 students have been excluded because of the hijab ban and the subsequent High Court decision?” Senior advocate Huzaifa Ahmadi, representing one of the petitioners, referred to a report and said it contained the statements of several students.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.