{"id":263714,"date":"2022-03-15T11:09:12","date_gmt":"2022-03-15T05:39:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=263714"},"modified":"2022-03-15T17:59:47","modified_gmt":"2022-03-15T12:29:47","slug":"karnataka-hc-upholds-hijab-ban","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/15\/karnataka-hc-upholds-hijab-ban\/","title":{"rendered":"Hijab Row | Karnataka HC upholds Hijab Ban: Read Questions formulated by HC while pronouncing verdict"},"content":{"rendered":"

Karnataka High Court formulated a few questions:<\/span><\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. \n

    Whether wearing Hijab is a part of essential religious practise in Islamic faith protected under Article 25 of the Constitution?<\/span><\/h4>\n<\/li>\n
  2. \n

    Whether the prescription of the School Uniform is not legally permissible as being violative of the petitioner’s fundamental rights inter alia guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 i.e. Right to Privacy of the Constitution?<\/span><\/h4>\n<\/li>\n
  3. \n

    Whether the G.O. apart from being incompetent is issued without application of mind and is further manifestly arbitrary and therefore violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution?<\/span><\/h4>\n<\/li>\n
  4. \n

    Whether any case is made out in WP 2146 of 2022 sought the issuance of direction for initiating disciplinary inquiry against respondents 6 to 14 and for issuance of quo warranto against respondents 15 and 16?<\/span><\/h4>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    \n
    \n

    Answers<\/span><\/h3>\n
    \n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
    • \n

      Wearing of Hijab by Muslim Women does not form a part of essential religious practise in Islamic faith.<\/span><\/h4>\n<\/li>\n
    • \n

      Prescription of the School Uniform is only a reasonable restriction constitutionally permissible to which the students cannot object to.<\/span><\/h4>\n<\/li>\n
    • \n

      Government has power to issue the impugned Order dated 05.2.2022 and that no case is made out for its invalidation.<\/span><\/h4>\n<\/li>\n
    • \n

      No case is made out in WP No.2146\/2022 for issuance of a direction for initiating disciplinary enquiry against respondents 6 to 14. The prayer for issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto against respondents 15 and 16 is rejected being not maintainable.<\/span><\/h4>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      [Resham v. State of Karnataka, WP No. 2347 of 2022, decided on 15-3-2022]<\/p>\n

      \n

      Hijab Case | When Karnataka High Court temporarily restrained students from wearing hijab, religious flags, saffron shawls, etc.: Read Court\u2019s interim order || A Recap<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n