Hijab row: No re-exam for those who skipped exams, says Minister B C Nagesh
Bengaluru(PTI): Ruling out holding re-exams for those who skipped them on account of the hijab row, Karnataka Minister for Primary and Secondary Education B C Nagesh on Monday said there is no such system for absentees.
He said exams are competitive in nature and there cannot be humanitarian consideration for absentees.
"Whatever the Court has said, we will abide by it. Being absent from exams will only be the prime factor and not the reason, whether it may be because of hijab row or ill-health or inability to attend or for not having studied. In the final exam- absent means absent- repeat exams cannot be held," Nagesh said in response to a question.
Speaking to reporters here, he said only those who have failed in the exam will have an opportunity to take up the supplementary exams.
"There cannot be new precedent, from the time the board exams are being held, there is no such system to hold re-exam for absentees," he added.
Following the Karnataka High Court's interim order in February restraining all the students from wearing saffron shawls, scarves, hijab and any religious flag within the classroom, several Muslim girl students had boycotted classes and had skipped the practical exams.
The Court in its final order on March 15 had dismissed petitions filed by a section of Muslim girl students, seeking permission to wear the headscarf inside the classroom.
With the High Court order now being challenged in the Supreme Court, several Muslim girls continue to boycott classes and have indicated about skipping second PUC (class 12) board exams in April, with some of them making it clear that they would not return to classrooms without their hijab.
Stating that there cannot be humanitarian consideration while holding exams or in the education system, the Minister said, exams are competitive and it should be held in an uniform way, in which rank or first class or others is to be scored.
"If we consider humanitarian grounds, tomorrow people will come with varied reasons for not attending exams and seek re-exam.. it cannot happen. There is no such system of holding re-exam for absentees," he said.
Noting that the interim order and thereafter the final order on the hijab row had come much before the exams, Nagesh said, "I can't believe the PU students who have gone to Supreme Court, would not have gone through the interim and final order. They are clever, some of them have decided to be absent, after going through it."
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Questioning religious practices will break religion, civilisation: SC in Dawoodi Bohras case
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday remarked that if individuals start questioning certain religious practices or matters of religion before a constitutional court then there will be hundreds of petitions questioning different rituals, leading to the breaking of religions and the civilisation.
The nine-judge Constitution bench is hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, and on the ambit and scope of the religious freedom practised by multiple faiths, including Dawoodi Bohras.
The bench comprises Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
The Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community filed a PIL in 1986 seeking the setting aside of a 1962 judgment, which had struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949 -- this law made excommunication of any community member illegal.
The 1962 Constitution bench judgment said, "It is evident from the religious faith and tenets of the Dawoodi Bohra community that the exercise of the power of excommunication by its religious head on religious grounds formed part of the management of its affairs in matters of religion and the 1949 Act in making even such excommunication invalid, infringed the right of the community under Article 26(b) of the Constitution."
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing a group of reformist Dawoodi Bohras, submitted that a practice which is conducted in response to secular and social actions of an individual cannot be the subject of Constitutional protection under Article 25 of the Constitution and consequently cannot be a ‘matter of religion’ under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Ramachandran told the court that a practice which may have a religious aspect but also significantly and adversely impacts fundamental rights is not immune to restriction under Article 25 of the Constitution or Article 26 of the Constitution.
Responding to the submission, Justice Nagarathna said that if everybody starts questioning certain religious practices or matters of religion before a constitutional court, then "what happens to this civilisation where religion is so intimately connected with the Indian society".
"There will be hundreds of petitions questioning this right that right, opening of the temple, and the closure of the temple. We are conscious of this," she said.
Adding to the response, Justice Sundresh said, "Every religion will break and every constitutional court will have to be closed.
"If the dispute between two entities are allowed then everybody will question everything. In your case there may be a civil wrong committed to you but in another case, another member will say I don't agree. It is regressive. To what extent can we go in a country like ours which is progressive and on the move is the question," he said.
Justice Nagarathna went on that what sets apart India from any other region is that "we are a civilisation" despite having so many pluralities and diversities?
Asserting that diversity is the country's strength, she added, "One of the constants in our Indian society is the relationship of human beings -- man, woman and child -- with the religion."
"Now, how a religious practice or a matter of religion is questioned, where it is questioned, whether it can be questioned, whether it has to be a question within a denomination for a reform or whether the state will have to do or you want the court to adjudicate upon all these aspects. This is troubling us.
"What we lay down, is for a civilisation that is India. India must progress despite all its economy, everything there is a constant in us. We can’t break that constant. That is what is troubling us ," she said.
Ramachandran replied that India is a civilisation under the Constitution and therefore nothing which goes against the grain of constitution can be continued in a civilised society.
He said that's where court's task come in and "it can't throw hands" and say there will be so many petitions.
