New Delhi: A day ahead of reopening of pre-university colleges in Karnataka, which were shut due to protests over wearing of Hijab inside classrooms, state Home Minister Araga Jnanendra said authorities have been directed to identify and initiate legal action against religious organisations attempting to break the society and corrupt innocent students.
"Some religious organisations are using students to try to divide the society.. Instructions have been given to identify them and initiate appropriate legal action against them," the minister said in a statement.
He claimed that not all but a few students were insisting that they be allowed to go to the school wearing Hijab.
The Karnataka High Court in its interim order relating to the Hijab issue has restrained students from attending classes wearing headscarves or saffron scarves.
Mr Jnanendra also noted that safety measures have been taken to ensure peace and order in the state so that students attend classes in without any hindrance.
He also requested the students to engage in their academic activities without any fear or feeling of insecurity.
Here are the Highlights on Hijab Row:
Cumulative COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in India reaches nearly 174 croreThe cumulative COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in the country reached nearly 174 crore on Tuesday, the Union Health Ministry said. More than 37 lakh (37,69,847) vaccine doses were administered till 7 pm on Tuesday.
So far, more than 1.79 crore (1,79,58,242) precaution doses have been given to healthcare workers, frontline workers and those aged 60 and above with co-morbidities.
The daily vaccination tally is expected to increase with the compilation of the final reports for the day by late night.
The countrywide vaccination drive was rolled out on January 16 last year with healthcare workers (HCWs) getting inoculated in the first phase. The vaccination of frontline workers (FLWs) started from February 2 last year.
Covid: 756 fresh cases, five more deaths in Delhi; positivity rate down to 1.52%Delhi on Tuesday reported 756 fresh COVID-19 cases and five more deaths, while the positivity rate was 1.52 per cent, according to data shared by the city health department.
With this, the national capital's case count increased to 18,52,662 and the death count climbed to 26,081, the latest health bulletin stated.
The number of COVID-19 tests conducted a day ago was 49,792, it said.
Delhi had on Monday reported 586 cases with a positivity rate of 1.37 per cent, and four deaths.
"Hecklers' Veto Cannot Be Allowed": Students To High Court On Hijab RowThe right to use hijab or headscarves in educational institutions cannot be blocked citing public order, the Karnataka High Court was told today, Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, who was representing students who challenged the bar on head scarves, said courts have earlier recognised the fact that "hecklers' veto cannot be allowed".
He also asked the court to rethink its interim judgment to barring religious attire, saying it amounts to a "suspension of the fundamental rights" -- to education and religious freedoms -- and allowing it is only a small adjustment.
Chief Justice: This is not correct practice. A lawyer cannot swear an affidavit. It has to be sworn by the party.
Tahir : But the civil rules permit it.
CJ : The Affidavit filed by advocate is rejected. We will continue hearing tomorrow.
Advocate General objects : The affidavit is filed by the counsel. We will respond to a proper application.
Tahir : Civil rules permit counsel to file affidavit in certain circumstances. I have explained why the party cannot make the affidavit.
Kumar : Colleges are reopening tomorrow. I, therefore, submit that application I made yesterday.
(The application alleges misuse of HC order by authorities by preventing hijab wearing girls and teachers).
Hearing to continue tomorrow
Kumar : Education Act is a complete code. This College Development Committee is a non-existent body under the statute. It is an extra-legal authority which is now endowed with the power to prescribe the uniform, contrary to the scheme of the act and letter of the rules.
Kumar : We are not violating any public order, equality or unity.
Kumar : Kindly take note of the fact there is no ban of wearing hijab by any student much less by religious minority community. GO says CDC will prescribe it. Till then, clothes which do not threaten public order, equality or unity must be worn, it say
Kumar : Government has said it is yet to decide on the uniform.
Kumar: There is no prohibition in wearing the Hijab even in the GO.
Kumar : Kindly mark this Govt is yet to take a decision on the uniform dress code. It is to constitute a high-level committee. As of now Govt has not prescribed any uniform or prohibited the wearing of hijab.
Kumar : I was prevented from entering the school from Dec 28. So their banking upon a decision taken on Dec 31.
Sr Adv Professor Ravivarma Kumar begins submissions.
CJ : Let us first understand the status of the petitioner. She has filed another writ petition and has filed a withdrawal memo in the other petition.
Kumar : Yes.
CJ : In that case, will allow the withdrawal of other.
CJ : Mr Sanjay Hegde has already made his inargument 2146. We will not hear anyone else.
Mir says Hegde made only preliminary submissions.
CJ : Please don't waste the time of the court. We will hear the other counsels.
CJ: You people cannot decide who is to argue first. Let us one thing be clear we will hear only one counsel in one case.
Adv Thair: Mr Hegde has argued only made submission on preliminary reliefs.
CJ : Sorry, this we will not allow. Mr.Hegde has made his submissions. We have noted.
Adv Tahir submits that a withdrawal memo has been filed in WP 2146/
AG : The point is, the arguments on behalf of Resham have been addressed. Same petitioner cannot urge the same questions of law on the same facts through different counsel.
Advocate General intervenes : The petition of Ravivarma Kumar is filed by one Ms Resham. This very petitioner has filed wp 2146/2022 in which Mr Hegde argued.
CJ : She has filed two petitions?
AG : Yes, she is one of the petitioners in another case. They have to justify.
Court now permits Sr Adv Professor Ravivarma Kumar to begin submissions.
Kumar: Kindly refer to Statement of objection filed by the state.
Kamat : This order in effect suspends fundamental rights. Kindly do not continue this interim order.
Kamat concludes his submissions. Expresses gratitude to the bench for patient hearing and to his associates who helped him in reasearch.
Kamat : I respectfully submit that the sweep of your lordships order is extremely board and it is in the teeth of Article 25 and other rights. Kindly make some leeway. In the meanwhile permit us to wear the head scarf in addition to uniform. Consideration will take time.
Kamat: Under Article 25, there is no concept of subject to reasonable restrictions.
CJ: Yesterday only we pointed how the article starts.. "Subject to..
Kamat refers to the interim order passed by the bench.
CJ : In that order, we did not decide anything.
Kamat : May be I use the wrong word expelled. They are not allowed entry.
CJ : Whether they are not allowed entry in class or school?
Kamat: Not allowing inside the classroom or school has the same consequences.
Chief Justice : In your case, students have been expelled?
Kamat : They are not allowed to enter.
Justice Dixit : Expulsion is different from not allowing entry.
CJ: How you are applying the doctrine of proportionality if they are not expelled?
Justice Dixit : A passanger not allowing entry in a train because of not having a ticket.. how is that covered under doctrine of proportionality?
Kamat submits that the Education Act has no provision to expel a student for not adhering to uniform.
"If you are expelled for an extra attire, doctrine of proportionality will come in", Kamat submits.
Kamat :This is an innocuous practise of wearing head scarf and not changing my uniform. This is a facet of freedom of speech and expression. If small exemption is given to wear headscarf, it will be in line with right to freedom of speech and expression.
Kamat quotes from SC judgment in Aruna Roy case - Our secularism is from a Vedic perspective "Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava"
Kamat :State says we are a secular state, we are not Turkey milords. Our Constitution provides positive secularism and all faiths have to be recognised.
Kamat : When your lordships passed the order last day, probably your lordships had secularism in mind. But our secularism is not Turkey secularism. Ours is positive secularism. We recognise all religions as true.
Kamat says there is judicial recognition to fact that "hecklers veto" cannot be allowed.
"If I go on street, and somebody stops saying he does not like Devdatt Kamat, then State cannot stop me from going to the street saying it will create public order issue".
Kamat : If the state says if somebody wears a head scarf and it will lead to galata, therefore we cannot allow it, that is an impermissible argument.
Kamat : State cannot create a facile argument that public order is disrupted and it has to create a positive environment facilitating enjoyment of rights.
Kamat now on the point of whether public order can be invoked here.
Kamat: Yesterday I was on the point that State cannot say that public order will be disturbed...
Kamat says he will give a written note about the judgments. CJ says that will be better.
Kamat says the Canada judgment permitted a Sikh student to wear Kirpan to school.
Kamat says he wants to refer to a Canada judgment.
Chief Justice : How are these judgments relevant to the issues in this case? We follow our Constitution.
CJ to Kamat : Yesterday you said you will take only 10 minutes?
Kamat : It was my duty to respond to the queries. I have not repeated anything. I will finish soon.
CJ : We are not in a hurry. But you should be in a hurry.
"The display of religion and culture in public is not a "parade of horribles" but a pageant of diversity which will enrich our schools and in turn our country", Kamat quotes from SA judgment.
"if there are other learners who hitherto were afraid to express their religions or cultures and who will now be encouraged to do so,that is something to be celebrated, not feared", Kamat quotes from the South African judgment.
"The possibility for abuse should not affect the rights of
those who hold sincere beliefs", Kamat quotes from the South African judgment.
Kamat : This is what the Chief Justice asked me, whether they have been wearing the headscarves. Yes, they have been wearing and the students were following the school discipline.
South African court noted that Sunali had been wearing nose-studs for two years and did not create any adverse effect on the school discipline.
Drawing parallels from SA judgment, Kamat argues the Hijab case is also not about uniforms and not even exemptions to uniforms but an additional cloth over the uniform.
Kamat refers to SA judgment : "..this case is not about uniforms, but about exemptions to existing uniforms".
Kamat refers to SA judgment. The Court considered the question "whether, considering the importance of the stud t on Sunali, allowing her to wear the stud would impose too great a burden on the School".
Kamat refers to SA judgment. The Court considered the question "whether, considering the importance of the stud t on Sunali, allowing her to wear the stud would impose too great a burden on the School".
Kamat continues referring to SA judgment : If Sonali says nose-stud is central to her South Indian Hindu culture, then the Court cannot say it is not, because outside authorities cannot decide.
Kamat reads judgment : Evidence shows that the nose stud is not a mandatory tenet of Sunali's religion or culture; But the evidence does confirm that the nose stud is a voluntary expression of South Indian Tamil Hindu culture, a culture that is intertwined with Hindu religion.
Kamat : Your Lordships are very well aware of our scriptures. Our Vedas, Upanishads. The central theme is that we are not islands. The same finds echo in the South African judgment.
Kamat : Will heavens fall if you don't wear Hijab for few hours in school? They ask. Similar was the argument of the school in the South African case against the Hindu girl wearing nose ring.
Kamat says that the school argued that the Hindu girl had agreed to the school code, use of nose ring was not a popular practice, the ban on nose ring had no impact on her culture as she is free to wear it outside. Same arguments in Hijab case as well.
Kamat says that the Hindu girl pleaded in the Court that the practice of wearing nose ring was a part of long standing tradition in South India.
Kamat says the South African judgment was related to the claim of a Hindu girl from South India to wear a nose ring. The school did not permit. The school said it will lead to a "parade of horrible".
Kamat refers to another judgment of the constitutional court of South Africa.
Justice Dixit : This judgment is rendered in the light of the text of the Constitutional provisions. How they read?
Kamat says the judgment refers to the provisions.
Kamat :Here presuming that there is a uniform, somebody is asking for an exemption. It is the duty of state and school to accommodate and not punish.
Kamat says that the case pertained to Rastafarian followers who have to grow hair into dreadlocks.
Justice Dixit asks if those decisions are from theocratic states.
Kamat says they are from secular constitution. He refers to a South African judgment.
Kamat now responds to bench's query regarding judgments of foreign courts on Hijab.
Kamat : Your lordships Dixit cited the Upanishad (verse cited) the other day, that knowledge from all directions should be welcomed.
Kamat : It cannot be that by Education Act you can curb religious beliefs. Otherwise, it is a very dangerous propositition. State will says there is an Act and based on that we will curb somebody's freedom.
Kamat: To counter that, if somebody wears a shawl, you will have to show that is it a display of religious identity alone or is it something more. If it is sanctioned by Hinduism, by our Vedas or Upanishads then the court is duty bound to protect it.
Kamat : When I was in school and college I used to wear rudraksha. It was not to display my religious identity. It was a practice of faith because it gave me security. We see many judges and senior lawyers wearing such customary things.
Kamat : The essence of Article 25 is that it protects the practise of faith but not a mere display of religious identity or jingoism.
Kamat: What flows from this judgment is that the guidance to state in stopping religious practise is it should be which is abhorrent having a deleterious effect on society. In this case, it is an innocuous practice of wearing head scarf.
Kamat reads from the "Sardar Syedna" judgment.
Kamat: Some amount of guidance is there in the judgment regarding the power of the state is to be exercised. State can regulate "deleterious practices". Here, in this case, it (hijab) is an innocuous practice.
Kamat says the SCR reports do not give paragraphs.
Justice Dixit : SCR is the only authoritative publication.
Kamat : Yes milord, though we refer to SCC as a matter of practice.
Kamat quotes from the judgment - "laws providing for social welfare and reform not intended to enable the legislature to reform a religion out of existence or identity"
Kamat : If it is the essence of the religion, neither under Articles 25(2)(a) or (b) it can be curtailed. Subject to of course public order, morality or health.
Kamat is referring to "Sardar Syedna Taher" case in which the Supreme Court struck down a Bombay law which prohibited ex-communication from a community on petitions by Bohra members. SC said, if this is an essential practice, it must be upheld.
Kamat : Yesterday I was asked whether reform in Article 25(2) can apply to an essential religious practice. That is answered by the Supreme Court (1962) 2 SCR 496.
Kamat reads Article 25 in Kannada. Points out the use of "sarvajanik suvyavasthe" in that Article for "public order".
Kamat : Very categorically sarvajyanik suvyavasthe means public order and it cannot have a different meaning. I rest my case there.
Kamat : If the State has used the word in Constitution the word has to be given the same meaning. Public order as per Constitution in Kannada is "Sarvayanik suvyavaste". Interestingly, this is used 9 times in Constitution.
Justice Dixit : Have you seen the judgment of Justice Hidayattullah in Sajjan Singh case. He said "I don't want to play the role of a grammarian".
Justice Krishna Dixit says that the words in a GO cannot be read like a words in a statute.
Kamat : I respectfully submit that "sarvajanik suvyavasthe" used in GO is not capable of two meanings and means public order.
Kamat : State says that the word in GO "savrajanik suvyavasthe" does not mean "public order". The official Kannada translation of the Constitution uses this word "sarvajanik suvyavasthe" for "public order". I am surprised the State made this argument.
Sr Adv Devadatt Kamat begins submissions. He seeks to make a clarification regarding the translation of the Kannada GO, which was in dispute yesterday.
Adv Mohammed Tahir: The order passed by court is misued by the state. Muslims girls are forced to remove their hijab. In Gulbarga govt officials went to an Urdu school and forced the teachers and students to remove hijab.
Tahir : The order is getting misused by the authorities. I have presented all the media reports
Chief Justice : We will ask the respondents to get instructions on this.
Advocate General says the affidavit is vague.
Advocate General: The affidavit is vague. Let them come with proper application and we will respond. The affidavit is not filed by any petitioner.
CJ : Who filed the affidavit?
Tahir : I have filed the affidavit.
CJ : Counsel cannot file affidavit. That will be misconduct.
Karnataka Set To Crack Down On Outfits Disturbing Peace Amid Hijab RowA day ahead of reopening of pre-university colleges in Karnataka, which were shut due to protests over wearing of Hijab inside classrooms, state Home Minister Araga Jnanendra said authorities have been directed to identify and initiate legal action against religious organisations attempting to break the society and corrupt innocent students.
"Some religious organisations are using students to try to divide the society.. Instructions have been given to identify them and initiate appropriate legal action against them," the minister said in a statement.
Stopped Over Hijab, 2 Karnataka Students Refuse To Take Exams Controversy over the banning of hijabs in Karnataka schools continued Tuesday after it emerged that students at schools in Udupi and Shivamogga district could not write their exams the day before because they were refused permission to do so while wearing a hijab, or headscarf.
Those not allowed to do so included two students from a state-run school in Udupi, and one parent told NDTV the school threatened the girl with police action if she refused to remove the hijab.
"This (banning of hijabs) was never there before. Our children were made to sit in separate rooms. Yesterday, the teachers shouted at the children... They (the school) had never done this before," the parent, whose child is a Class 6 student of a state government-run school in Udupi, said.