IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RITU RAJ AWASTHI, KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.M. KHAZI, JJ.
Smt Resham, D/O K Faruk – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2347, of 2022 (GM-RES) C/w Writ Petition No. 2146 of 2022 (GM-RES), Writ Petition No. 2880, 3038, 3424, 4309, 4338 of 2022 (GM-RES-PIL)
Decided on : 15-03-2022
ORDER :
This judgment, we desire to begin with what Sara Slininger from Centralia, Illinois concluded her well researched article “VEILED WOMEN: HIJAB, RELIGION, AND CULTURAL PRACTICE-2013”:
Three of these cases namely W.P.No.2347/2022, W.P.No.2146/2022 & W.P.No.2880/2022, were referred by one of us (Krishna S Dixit J.) vide order dated 09.02.2022 to consider if a larger Bench could be constituted to hear them. The Reference Order inter alia observed:
Accordingly, this Special Bench came to be constituted the very same day vide Notification dated 09.02.2022 to hear these petitions, to which other companion cases too joined.
I. PETITIONERS’ GRIEVANCES & PRAYERS BRIEFLY STATED:
(i) In Writ Petition No. 2347/2022, filed by a petitioner – girl student on 31.01.2022, the 1st, 3rd & 4th respondents happen to be the State Government & its officials, and the 2nd respondent happens to be the Government Pre–University College for Girls, Udupi. The prayer is for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to wear hijab (head – scarf) in the class room, since wearing it is a part of ‘essential religious practice’ of Islam.
(ii) In Writ Petition No. 2146/2022 filed by a petitioner–girl student on 29.01.2022, the 1st, 3rd, 4th & respondents happen to be the State Government & its officials and the 2nd respondent happens to be the Government Pre – University College for Girls, Udupi. The prayer column has the following script:
2. Issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS to Respondent no 3 conduct enquiry against the Respondent no 6 to 14 for their Hostile approach towards the petitioners students.,
3. Issue WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO against the Respondent no 15 and 16 under which authority and law they interfering in the administration of Respondent no 5 school and promoting their political agenda. And,
4. DECLARE that the status quo referred in the letter dated 25/01/2022 at ANNEXURE H is with the consonance to the Department guidelines for the academic year 2021-22 same at ANNEXURE J…”
(iii) In Writ Petition Nos.2880/2022, 3038/2022 & 4309/2022, petitioner – girl s
AHSA RENJAN vs. STATE OF BIHAR
AJMAL KHAN vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
AHSA RENJAN vs. STATE OF BIHAR
ADI SAIVA SIVACHARIYARGAL NALA SANGAM vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
BIJOE EMMANUAL vs. STATE OF KERALA
COMMON CAUSE vs. UNION OF INDIA
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE vs. GORDHANDAS BHANJE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE vs. C. ANITA
CHURCH OF GOD (FULL GOSPEL) IN INDIA vs. K.K.R MAJECTIC COLONY WELFARE ASSCOIATION
CHINTAMAN RAO vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
GULAM ABBAS vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI vs. RAJ NARAIN
INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS vs. UNION OF INDIA
INTERNET & MOBILE ASSN. OF INDIA vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
INDIBILY CREATIVE PVT. LTD vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION vs. STATE OF KERALA
JANE SATHYA vs. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM ENGINEERING COLLEGE
K.S PUTTASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA
LUBNA MEHRAJ VS. MEHRAJ-UD-DIN KANTH
MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
MOHINDER SINGH GILL vs. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER
NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR vs. UNION OF INDIA
MOHD. FARUK V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
MOHD. AHMED KHAN vs. SHAH BANO BEGUM
NARAYANAN NAMBUDRIPAD vs. MADRAS
NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY vs. UNION OF INDIA
ORIENT PAPER MILLS LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA
RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
SHAYARA BANO VS. UNION OF INDIA
SRI VENKATARAMANA DEVARU vs. STATE OF MYSORE
STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. PRAVEEN BHAI THOGADIA (DR.)
S.R. BOMMAI vs. UNION OF INDIA
S.K. MOHD. RAFIQUE vs. CONTAI RAHAMANIA HIGH MADRASAH
SOCIETY FOR UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF RAJASTHAN vs. UNION OF INDIA
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. GURDEV SINGH
STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs. COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRACTIC RIGHTS
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE vs. C.D. GOVINDA RAO
UNION OF INDIA vs. K.M.SHANKARAPPA
Hijab restrictions – Right to wear hijab in School – Denial of education - Wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of Choice - It may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it ....
(1) Prescription of dress code for college – Regulation of such a dress code has to be treated as an exercise towards maintaining discipline at Institution – This right flows from recognized fundamen....
The right to wear hijab as a part of essential religious practice and the need to balance it with reasonable restrictions as provided by the Constitution of India.
The Madarsa Act, 2004 violates the secular principles of the Constitution and the right to quality education, rendering it unconstitutional.
Point of Law : Law could not be deemed to be unreasonable unless it was totally destructive or annihilative of the right under Art.30(1).
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.