Skip to main content

Hijab ban in Karnataka

                    Hijab Ban in Karnataka 

After the ban on hijab by the Karnataka’s Udupi College, the chaos has taken place in the whole country. People from Muslim Community esspecially the womens demand that this ban is wrong and bad in the eyes of law. It violates the right to profess their religion freely. According to them, it is a direct infringement on their rights which every individual has in India because India is a secular country and here evryone is allowed to practice their religion and not be discriminated on the basis of that.

As per the survey done internationally, there emerges the fact that no institution and college of any country has banned hijab or any religious thing of that sort wore by the individuals. They are allowed to wear clothes and complimentaries according to their religious sentiments. They feel this is secularism.

But what really is secularism? This question should be asked before blaming the authorities or government or teachers or college or the country or arriving at any conclusion. All the facts and circumstances should always be kept in  mind before assessing as the result which will come before taking into account all the facts, the result will be diluted. They are not correct and will not display the truth. It will be partial. So with the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India done in1976, India is a ‘Secular’ nation. The meaning of a secular nation is that the country does not prioritize any one religion for the country and its people. They are free to adopt any religion and profess that and the State will not discriminate on the basis of that.

But the particular hijab ban which is happening in Karnataka is only in colleges and on the students. It nowhere bans hijab for the teachers and at any other place. The reason behind this is that a institution or colleges or schools have a particular dress code which should be followed by all the students attending it. Comparing with the turban which is wore by the Sikh community, it is very different because the turban is only on the head of the man which covers his hair whereas the hijab is a cloth which covers the whole face of the woman. They are not same and should not be put into the same category as the the visibility of the face is an important factor and should be kept in mind. They are complimentaries which is related to the religious sentiments but this fact is also true that they are different in its types. So, it is not same.

Coming to the fact that it takes the rights of the women, it is very important to notice that where the ban is taking place. The colleges never told women to not wear hijab anywhere and this is banned. The only thing which they asked was that it is is not allowed in the campus of the college and that is why they shouldn’t be wearing here. They are free to wear that outside the college where they will exercise no control. So, it is very safe to say that this ban comes under the dress code of the college and does not violate or infringes anybody’s right. It is like this and should be followed by all the students. Also, it is important to note that teachers are not mentioned in this ban. If they want, they can wear that.

Therefore, the arguments which is taking place on Secularism and the rights of the women, is wrong because the ban is merely based upon the rules and regulations of the college. It is not taking anybody’s right. Just asking for a certain pattern or code of conduct which should be followed by the students of the college.


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