Karnataka Hijab Controversy : Differences between Supreme Court judges, case referred to CJI

हिन्दी में पढ़ने के लिए यहां क्लिक करें 👈🏿

There was a difference of opinion between the two judges of the Supreme Court regarding the decision in the Karnataka Hijab Ban case, after which the matter has been referred to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Now the Chief Justice will decide what to do next in the matter. It is believed that a big bench can be made in it. With this decision of the Supreme Court, the fight for hijab got protracted.

Karnataka Hijab Controversy
Differences between Supreme Court judges

A bench of Supreme Court Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was to decide whether the High Court’s decision on the Karnataka Hijab controversy was correct or not. Both the judges had different opinions while delivering the verdict on this. While Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the petitions, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia overturned the Karnataka High Court order.

Recent tweet

Since the two judges had different views on the Karnataka hijab ban case, the matter was referred to the CJI. Now a larger bench will hear the matter and the hijab case will be heard afresh in the Supreme Court.

Several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Karnataka High Court decision refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions in Karnataka, following which the matter was debated for 10 days by a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia. Was. Now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will decide when and which bench will hear the Karnataka hijab ban case. This decision prolonged the fight for hijab.

Hemant Gupta said how is the right to individual liberty and privacy explained? Should this matter be referred to a Constitution Bench? Can the college management decide on the uniform or hijab of the students? Are fundamental rights being violated by government orders? Can a student not exercise his fundamental rights because he has worn the right part of the religious practice required under Islam?

Does the government order serve the purpose of access to education? In my view the reply is against the appellant. In my view the reply is against the appellant. I dismiss the appeal. In view of the differing views, the matter may be placed before the CJI for appropriate directions.

Sudhanshu Dhulia disagreed with the Karnataka High Court’s decision to ban the hijab, saying the entire concept of essential religious practice was not relevant in the controversy. The High Court took a wrong step in this matter. It is purely a matter of choice and Articles 14 and 19. Girls from these areas first do household chores and then go to school. The biggest question in my mind was the education of girls.

Are we making their lives better? That was the question in my mind. I have ordered the removal of the ban by setting aside the government order of 5 February. I respectfully disagree. It was only a matter related to Articles 19, and 25. It is a matter of preference, nothing more and nothing less.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *