However, Chief Justice of India N V Ramana is of the view that since the case is pending before the Karnataka High Court, we should wait for its decision.
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI — The dispute over hijab in Karnataka has reached the Supreme Court with senior Congress leader and a seasoned lawyer Kapil Sibal, on behalf of a petitioner, appealed for the its intervention in the matter. He sought the transfer of the case from the Karnataka High Court.
While the apex court conceded that it would consider the transfer of the plea, Chief Justice of India N V Ramana is of the view that since the case is pending before the Karnataka High Court, we should wait for its decision.
Underscoring the urgent nature of the case, Sibal pointed out, “The problem is that schools and colleges are closed. Girls are being stoned. It’s spreading across the country.” Hence, the matter should be listed in the Supreme Court, he said, adding he does not want any order.
The high court, on Wednesday, referred the matter to a larger bench on the plea that the case involves seminal constitutional questions. The petition in the high court calls for allowing Muslim girls to enter colleges with hijab.
The petition before the SC by one, Bushra Fatima, seeks the hearing into the case by the top court since the case since the issue impacts Muslims all over the country. The petitioner said the hijab ban in Karnataka colleges is not an isolated issue. It should be seen in the light of the growing incidents of attacks targeting Muslims. This she says manifests itself in Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), ban on prayer on public land in Gurugram, hate speeches, anti- conversion law in various states etc.
The petition pointed out that the last two academic years have been lost to Coronavirus pandemic. Now that schools-colleges are open, rightwing organisations have begun raising the bogey of hijab. The matter should be left hanging further as it would mean further loss to the studies of the students.
The petition also termed the ban order on clothing that “disturbs public order” issued under the Education Act, Section 133 (2) as an unconstitutional directive.
The interpretation of the essential parts of religion related to the “Kantaru Rajivru Vs. Lawyers Association ‘case is pending before a nine-judges bench of the Supreme Court.
