Karnataka hijab decision by the Supreme Court The decision will be announced at 10.30 am by Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia, a two-judge bench. On September 22, after hearing in-depth arguments from the petitioners and the state, the court reserved judgment in the case. today’s ban
On Thursday, the Supreme Court will issue its ruling on petitions contesting the Karnataka High Court’s March 15 decision dismissing several petitions submitted by Muslim girls enrolled in pre-university colleges requesting the ability to wear the hijab in class in Udupi.

The decision will be announced at 10.30 am by Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia, a two-judge bench. On September 22, after hearing in-depth arguments from the petitioners and the state, the court reserved judgment in the case.
The High Court upheld a state ruling from February 5 that stated wearing the hijab could be limited in government universities where uniforms are needed and decided that such restraints are appropriate under standards for college uniforms are “constitutionally permissible” while also holding that wearing the hijab is not an essential religious practice in Islam and that freedom of religion under Article Reasonable limitations apply to Section 25 of the Constitution.
Some Muslim students appealed this and went to the SC with the argument that the freedom to wear hijab comes under the purview of expression and is therefore protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They argued that the ‘right to conscience’ under Article 25 of the Constitution, which is an individual right, protects the freedom to wear a hijab as well as the argument that the HC erred in using the Essential Religious Practices Test.
The All Indian Muslim Personal Law Board, which also appealed the High Court’s decision, argued that religious scholars have come to a consensus concerning the interpretation of the holy Quran’s texts. Hijab wearers must adhere to a set of rules that are wajib (required); otherwise, they will sin or become sinners.
An extensive campaign of protests culminated in the HC order, during which some students protested the hijab-wearing pupils by wearing saffron shawls to the pre-university colleges.
The Karnataka government informed the SC during the hearing that the events that took place in the state before some college development committees banning the hijab in their respective educational Observing that women are revolting against the hijab even in constitutionally Islamic countries like Iran, she claimed that institutions were not spontaneous, but rather part of a greater scheme.
The state claimed that before 2022, when the now-banned Popular Front of India initiated a social media drive, none of the pupils were donning the hijab. There were repeated social media posts that (said), Start wearing the hijab,” in an effort to “generate a kind of agitation based on people’s religious views.
The state further refuted claims that the prohibition was meant to specifically target members of the minority population, claiming that the situation necessitated official intervention.

Today’s Supreme Court decision on the hijab ban in Karnataka

Karnataka hijab decision by the Supreme Court The decision will be announced at 10.30 am by Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia, a two-judge bench. On September 22, after hearing in-depth arguments from the petitioners and the state, the court reserved judgment in the case. today’s ban
On Thursday, the Supreme Court will issue its ruling on petitions contesting the Karnataka High Court’s March 15 decision dismissing several petitions submitted by Muslim girls enrolled in pre-university colleges requesting the ability to wear the hijab in class in Udupi.

The decision will be announced at 10.30 am by Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia, a two-judge bench. On September 22, after hearing in-depth arguments from the petitioners and the state, the court reserved judgment in the case.
The High Court upheld a state ruling from February 5 that stated wearing the hijab could be limited in government universities where uniforms are needed and decided that such restraints are appropriate under standards for college uniforms are “constitutionally permissible” while also holding that wearing the hijab is not an essential religious practice in Islam and that freedom of religion under Article Reasonable limitations apply to Section 25 of the Constitution.
Some Muslim students appealed this and went to the SC with the argument that the freedom to wear hijab comes under the purview of expression and is therefore protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They argued that the ‘right to conscience’ under Article 25 of the Constitution, which is an individual right, protects the freedom to wear a hijab as well as the argument that the HC erred in using the Essential Religious Practices Test.
The All Indian Muslim Personal Law Board, which also appealed the High Court’s decision, argued that religious scholars have come to a consensus concerning the interpretation of the holy Quran’s texts. Hijab wearers must adhere to a set of rules that are wajib (required); otherwise, they will sin or become sinners.
An extensive campaign of protests culminated in the HC order, during which some students protested the hijab-wearing pupils by wearing saffron shawls to the pre-university colleges.
The Karnataka government informed the SC during the hearing that the events that took place in the state before some college development committees banning the hijab in their respective educational Observing that women are revolting against the hijab even in constitutionally Islamic countries like Iran, she claimed that institutions were not spontaneous, but rather part of a greater scheme.
The state claimed that before 2022, when the now-banned Popular Front of India initiated a social media drive, none of the pupils were donning the hijab. There were repeated social media posts that (said), Start wearing the hijab,” in an effort to “generate a kind of agitation based on people’s religious views.
The state further refuted claims that the prohibition was meant to specifically target members of the minority population, claiming that the situation necessitated official intervention.

    error: Content is protected !!