Skip to main content

Controversy over the Hijab or head scarf.

 Controversy over the Hijab or head scarf. 

It has been escalation in coastal Karnataka which are worn by girls. These echoes of controversy are could also being heard in other parts of the Karnataka too even as a political slug fest is folding on the communalism on this sensitive issues. The several political leaders including Mehbooba Mufti and Rahul Gandhi has voice their condemnation over the twitter.


The rise of the controversy was when 6 female students belonging to the government pu college for girls in Urbi were not allowed to attend classes by wearing a hijab. The students protested on December 31,2021 claiming that the college was not allowing them to attend classes for the past 15 days. 

The unpaid BJP MLA  Raghupati Bhatt co- ahead the college development committee and held a meeting with the parents with other stake holders. He told the students to follow the college dress code in the class room but the 6 students chose to stay away from the class room. 

They filed a write petition in the Karnataka high court and approach to the human rights commission.

During the controversy the other educational institutions get involved. Following the incident, a group of boys at the government pre-University college in Gurdapur went to college coating saffron shawls in protest against some girls attending classes getting hijab. Gurdapur MLA Srinivas Shetty held a meeting with parent's and asks students to comply with the dress code of the college till the government takes the final decision on the matter. The MLA said that there are some girl who are attending the classes in the college supporting hijab for the last 5 days. The girls students on the other hand argued that they cannot be forced to stay out of the college following the sudden change in the dress code to bard the hijab. The counter wearing hijab and other side several Hindu boys wearing saffron shawls but too have been barred from entering classes. Such cases have been reported in several colleges, district in the coastal Karnataka. The row took a new turn in chitt nagarolu were in students IGSJ government first grade college arrived wearing blue shawl, they chanted slogans and raise their voice in support to the Muslim girls. They said they are in support of wearing hijab in colleges as part of the religious practices.

The Karnataka government issues an order stating that students have to comply with the uniform or dress code made by the college development committees. The primary and secondary education minister B.C. Nagesh said rules framed under the Karnataka educational act 2013 and 2018 have empowered education institutions to prescribe uniforms for schools and colleges student's. The department has issued a circular based on these rules and appeal to students to follow uniform prescribed by the college till the high court pronounced the verdict on the matter. Though uniforms are not mandatory in collages, but the college development committees often headed by the local  MLA's have been insisting on a dress code including banning hijab in the district's. The Karnataka Basavaraj S Bommai ordered closure of the high schools and colleges in Karnataka for 3 days in attempt to prevent further escalation of the row over the students wearing hijab in classroom.


Comments

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

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

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