- ;After days of protests, counter-protests, allegations, counter-allegations and back-to-back hearings, the Karnataka High Court, in Writ Petition no. 2347 of 2022,has pronounced its verdict on the Hijab case on Tuesday, March 15.
- ;On January 26, the Karnataka Government had formed an expert committee to resolve the matter. It was also announced that all girls should abide by the uniform rules until the committee offers its recommendations.
- ;Students from Udupi filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court seeking a declaration that wearing a hijab is a fundamental right. The plea stated that the Indian Constitution through Article 25 guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to practice, profess and propagate any religion.
- ;Taking up the holistic view of the entire matter, the court formulated the issue into questions and answered them accordingly.
- ;The Honourable Court while deciding as to whether wearing hijab/headscarf was protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, observed that wearing of hijab by Muslim women does not form an essential part of religious practice in Islamic faith.
- ;While adjudicating that whether prescription of school uniform was legally permissible and not violative of petitioner's fundamental rights, guaranteed under 19(1)(a) as freedom of expression and Article 21 as Right to Privacy, The Honourable Court has held thatit is only a reasonable restriction. It is constitutionally permissible and the students cannot object to it.
- ;The Court had to decide if Government Order dated 05.02.2022 apart from being incompetent was issued without application of mind and further was clearly arbitrary, violating Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution. It was observed that the Government has power to issue the impugned Government order dated(05.02.2022) and no case is made out for its invalidation.
- ;It was also contended that whether any case is made out in Writ Petition No. 2146 of2022, for issuance of a direction for initiating disciplinary inquiry against respondent No 6 to 14 and for issuance of a writ of quo warranto against respondent No 15 and 16. The Honourable Court held that no case is made out for issuance of a direction for initiating any disciplinary inquiry. The prayer for issuance of writ of quo warranto against respondent number 15 and 16 is rejected, being not maintainable.
- ;Accordingly in the given circumstances all the writ petitions, being devoid of merits, were liable to be and accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of these writ petitions, all the pending applications turned insignificant and were accordingly disposed of.
"Loved reading this piece by Neeraj?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
