The Supreme Court yesterday decided the Karnataka High Court case against the hijab ban. A two-judge bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudanshu Dhulia delivered the verdict. Two judges gave a different verdict. Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the appeals filed against the Karnataka High Court verdict. Meanwhile, Justice Sudanshu Dhulia, taking a different view, held that the ban on hijab was invalid and quashed the ordinance.
Justice Sudanshu Dhulia in his judgment made comments from the perspective of promoting diversity and providing educational opportunities to women.
Wearing hijab – it is their choice
He said on the occasion, “Schools especially PU universities are the perfect institutions where our children learn about the rich diversity of this nation and need guidance and guidance. To imbibe tolerance and constitutional values. People who speak other languages need to know their food and clothing habits.
It is time for them to learn not to be afraid of our diversity, but to enjoy and celebrate this diversity. This is the time for them to realize that diversity is our strength,” he said.
Continuing, he said that under the constitution, wearing the hijab should simply be their choice.
Justice Dhulia dissented from the High Court’s finding that fundamental rights cannot be upheld within the classroom. He said it was a worthy public space.
Courts, war rooms and security camps are eligible public places, it said. But the Supreme Court has pointed out that the freedom of individuals will be curtailed as per the need in each place.
Intrusion on privacy, dignity
Regarding this, Justice Thulia said, “School is a public place, but it is not right to define it with school, prison and army camp. If the view taken by the High Court relates to discipline in the school, it must be accepted. But morality is not at the price of freedom, not at the price of dignity…
Asking PU students to remove their hijab in front of the school gate is an invasion of their privacy and dignity, an interference with their privacy and dignity. It is a violation of their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. They carry their respect for their dignity and privacy not only at the school gates but also into the classroom. It is their fundamental right and not a “derivative right” as described by the High Court.”
What is important?
As a result of the hijab ban, some students were unable to write their public exams, and many had to transfer to other schools. An environment where it is not possible to get quality education has been created. The school administration and the state government should answer for this. Which is more important? Girl child education or dress code? He questioned.
Justice Dhulia further elaborated, “One of the best scenes in India is when girls go to school in the morning with book bags on their backs. They are our hope, our future. However, educating girls is difficult. It is more difficult than educating their brothers. In villages in India, girls have to help their mothers with daily chores before going to school. After doing the cleaning and washing work, you have to go to school. It is natural. So this should also be looked at in the case. He said there are many challenges for girls to go to school.
Also, wearing the hijab may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice. It can still be an expression of conscience, faith and emotion. If one wants to wear hijab, even inside the classroom, it cannot be stopped. It is based on their choice. Wearing it may be the only way their conservative family allows them to go to school. Hijab is a stepping stone to their education,” he said.
Get all Tamil Indian Express news instantly on Telegram app https://t.me/ietamil