Arguing that Kendriya Vidyalayas managed with the center for Muslim students to wear a hijab in a color that matches their school uniforms, the applicant on the prohibition of headscarves in several government educational institutions in Karnataka on Monday asked them to do the same.
The request was made in the form of a memo placed before the full bench, which consisted of the chairman of the Raja Raj Awasthi judge, justice JM Khazi and Justice Krishna M Dixit, who heard a number of petitions submitted by Muslim girls from pre-universities in the Udupi have been banned from Classes for wearing a headscarf in alleged uniform violations determined by the college committee.
“As far as concerns Muslim girls, they are allowed to wear scarves that match the wear down with Red Hem in Corners” by Kendriya Vidyalaya, senior advocate Devadatt Kamate to a full bench.
“In fact, Kendriya Vidyalaya even today, they allow with notice, even though they have uniforms. Even at the national level, this is a tradition. The government has allowed the headscarf to be charged,” Kamat said.
“Headscarves for Muslim girls and headgear allowances for Sikh. This is in line with Article 25 of the Constitution,” argued.
This case was postponed to hear further on Tuesday.
On Monday, the advice for the Petitioner told the court of Muslim girls wearing headscarves to their class until the command of the Karnataka government from February 5 legitimated prohibitions.
One of the major satisfaction of this advisor is that the state government, which has the responsibility to maintain public order, has outsourced responsibility for deciding fundamental rights to religious freedom (subject to public order) to the College Development Board (CDC)) through the order February 5.
“The government’s command of the declaration that wears a headscarf is not protected under article 25 is truly wrong … delegation to the CDC to decide whether to allow students to use a hijab or not fully illegal. When Lordships consciously, based on article 25, the only restrictions come. In state assistance in limiting religious freedom is public order, “Kamat said.
“Public orders are the responsibility of the State, it is the executive responsibility. The question that will appear to be considered is whether the CDC, which consists of MLA and subordinates, will decide whether the exercise of this fundamental freedom is based on Article 25 permitted or not. The extra legal authority has been made Our guardian of our constitutional freedom, which is really not permitted, “he said.
Advice for girls said that the use of hijab does not have to be an important religious practice to be considered for protection under the right to religious freedom.
“If there is a practice that according to believers is part of his faith and that the practice itself is not dangerous, it is not something, my Lord, who automatically violates public order. By itself, it does not violate anyone’s freedom. In this context, the question of practice Important religion will not appear. This is just a structure, “said the senior advocate.
