Skip to main content

KARNATAKA - HIJAB ROW

 KARNATAKA – HIJAB ROW

A writ petition was filed by a student of Women’s Government Pre-University College in Udipi for allowing entering into the college wearing Hijab. The ruling party in Karnataka is BJP and it banned the clothes that can religious in nature and said to “disturb the equality, integrity and public order”. The BJP’s State President said that the Government will not allow Hijab into the educational institutions.

The petitioner along with six other students were not allowed to enter her educational institution stating that wearing a Hijab is in violation of the dress code as it is religious in nature and tend to disturb the equality, integrity and public order. The petitioner along with other students sat outside gate of that educational institution, but they were still not allowed to enter into the classes. The college management had spoken with the parents of those students to not send their wards with Hijab, but the parents also insisted on allowing their wards with Hijab.

On January 31, 2022 the petitioner had approached the High Court seeking interim order to allow the students wearing Hijab into the classes until the whole matter is resolved. The petitioner has argued that wearing Hijab was her Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 14 and 25 of the Constitution of India. She stated that not allowing students to practice their religion and not allowing the students to enter the classrooms doesn’t serve the public interest. The state government has constituted an expert committee to look into this issue.

In many cases like Nadha Raheem v. CBSE, Amnah Bint Basheer v. CBSE, the courts gave alternative solutions to the situations where they banned Hijab without affecting the religious sentiments. Kerala High Court single bench order granted permission to Muslim girls to wear the Hijab, a customary religious dress, for All India Pre-Medical Test, 2016 (AIPMET). In Fathima Thasneem v. State of Kerala, it was stated that wearing Hijab is an essential religious practice. 


In some colleges, the girls were allowed into the college with Hijab. In the response some of the students wore saffron scarves as a protest against allowing the students wearing Hijab. Before the introduction of such law banning clothes that are religious, everything was peaceful among the students. This entire situation got worse only after banning clothes that are religious.

In a similar case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court has allowed the Muslim child to only stand during the National Anthem, as her religion doesn’t allow singing any other song irrelevant to her religion. The Court stated that not singing the National Anthem doesn’t mean disrespecting the nation. So, in the same way the author thinks that wearing a Hijab doesn’t disturb the equality, integrity and public order. According to the view of the author, the students have the right to practice their own religion as enshrined under the Article 25 of the Constitution of India. So, according to the author, the students should be allowed to wear Hijab to the classroom in the same way keeping Bindi on the forehead is allowed.


Karnataka – Hijab Row Case by Velanati Jyothirmai @ Lex Cliq
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