Fresh plea in Supreme Court on Karnataka hijab row
New Delhi, Feb 10: A fresh plea was filed in the Supreme Court Thursday on the hijab row in Karnataka raising the issue of the right to practice religion as enshrined as a fundamental right in the Constitution.
The plea filed by Youth Congress president B V Srinivas and a journalism student contended that there is a direct infringement of fundamental rights and also as events are happening in multiple states and likely to spread further, it would be better and proper that the apex court takes cognisance of the issue.
The plea said that different high courts in different states may pass conflicting orders.
"Everyone has the right to wear clothes / head gear of their choice and practice their own religion, its customs and traditions. If a small girl child is seen wearing Hijab , it can be 'not out of her own choice' but for older and adult girls and women wherein it is their choice, the right must be protected. Belief in religion is one thing but religious fanaticism is another facet altogether.
"The consequences of religious bigotry will not be right, no matter with what religion this bigotry is associated with. At least the schools, colleges and educational institutions should not be made the battleground for the fight against religious fanaticism," said the plea filed through advocates Roopesh Singh Bhadauria and Mareesh Pravir Sahay.
It said the dispute related to whether the Hijab or head scarf is an integral part of Islam or not can end only after consideration of the top court and on the issue of a uniform dress code for educational institutions.
"Also, any individual's fundamental rights and Constitutional rights on this aspect need to be considered and upheld which include wearing a Hijab or a head scarf. The Muslim girls and women must be given right to choose and right to wear a Hijab if they choose so, as their fundamental right," the plea said.
Earlier in the day, senior advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned a plea on hijab row before a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana and said the problem is that schools and colleges are closed.
"Girls are being stoned. It's spreading across the country," he said.
The apex court said it would consider a submission seeking the listing of a plea for transferring a case on the hijab row from the Karnataka High Court to itself.
The top court said that the high court is seized of the case and should be allowed to continue with the hearing and also decide 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.
Congress using hijab issue to pacify minority anger, alleges Karnataka LoP R Ashoka
Bengaluru: Leader of Opposition in the Assembly R. Ashoka has accused the Congress government of using the hijab issue to placate what he described as discontent among minority voters after the Davanagere by-election.
In a post on X on Wednesday, Ashoka alleged that the state government, instead of addressing issues such as price rise, corruption, farmers’ distress and law and order, was attempting to retain its minority vote base by reviving the hijab issue.
Referring to the 2022 dress code introduced by the BJP government, which prohibited hijab in schools and colleges, Ashoka said the Karnataka High Court had upheld the policy and emphasised the importance of discipline in educational institutions.
He questioned the Congress government’s move to revisit the issue and asked whether setting aside the court-backed policy to benefit one community could be described as secularism.
Ashoka further alleged that while the government was willing to permit hijab, it continued to prohibit saffron shawls.
He accused the government of dividing students on religious lines rather than treating schools and colleges as spaces of equality.
Drawing a comparison with Mamata Banerjee’s government in West Bengal, Ashoka claimed that excessive appeasement politics had harmed the state and warned that the Congress in Karnataka could face a similar political response.
He said voters in Karnataka would teach the Congress a lesson for what he termed “vote-bank politics” and for compromising constitutional and judicial principles.
