Skip to main content

Supreme court's intervention in Hijab case row

 Supreme court’s view of Hijab controversy row


All the disputed related to hijab started in the state of Karnataka
So, the colleges in the state of Karnataka restricted the students from entering into the school campus as they were wearing hijab
Before the case got ignited around the country, previously other people when noticed Muslim community people wearing hijab and coming to the college started to put saffron colour cloth on their shoulder and accelerated cold war inside the campus resulted in restricting students wearing hijab from entering the college .
So, as a result a protest was started by the students of the college for hijab during which Karnataka government imposed banned on hijab , which ignited the frequency of protest
The dispute got so big that it reached the high court of Karnataka where it stated that an interim order would be passed for the same
So  the main dispute that aroused was even if the court gives order in favour of hijab wearing students , other student community student would also wear saffron coloured cloth as a depict of their religion.
With mere stubbornness every student would forcefully e on intend on showing their religion by their cloth.
So, High court then decided to make a decision that until a solid verdict is passed till then no one would be allow to wear clothes that would directly depict their religion be it hijab or saffron cloth.
Mr.Kamat , the protester’s advocate reached Supreme court and said if Karnataka high court is looking forward to make such a statement in interim order it would violate Article 25 of the constitution which is right to religious freedom
So, in that case even Sikhs wearing turban shan’t be allowed .
This matter got against communal secularism .
The supreme court decided to intervene in this case , C. Justice N . V Ramana stated to petitioner’s senior Advocate Devadut Kamat “ .You have to think whether it is necessary to bring it to a national level”.
The court would come to a conclusion and it won’t violate the rights of people of country.
It shall protect the Constitutional rights of the people and there is no need to create controversy for the same.
It is an intented political chaos created by the community and shall increase in future .
According to me the angel given to the dispute may have been twisted but when pointing out the real and basic issue . Hijab should be allowed to wear inside the campus as it is a Islamic rule of modesty. Students wearing saffron cloth don’t wear it at home or when they move out from their house, while on the contrary certain Muslim community woman , no matter the place , wears it everywhere and every time they step out of the house . So, the comparison of the two should not be considered .If a married woman is pursuing a degree in college even after marriage , she is allowed to wear Sindoor as a sign of her married life , as she wears it everywhere .


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more