Priyanka Singh
Published on: September 9, 2022 at 20:53 IST
The Five-Judge bench headed by Justice Hemant Gupta contested that the turbans worn by Sikhs is an essential of the five compulsory ingredients of Sikhism and is recognized by the Supreme Court as well.
“There are requirement on turbans. Five-judge bench of this court held that wearing turban and kirpan is essential for Sikhs. That is why we are saying comparison with Sikh may not be proper. 5Ks of Sikh has been held to be mandatory,” Justice Gupta stated.
In reply to the statement, Advocate Nizam Pasha said, “Just like the 5Ks for Sikhs is the 5 pillars of Islam and that is the exact position for us,”
To which Justice Gupta said, “Please do not compare with Sikhism. It has been completely ingrained in Indian culture”
The contention to this statement was upheld as blasphemous by Pasha. The hearing will continue on 12th September, 2022 with Senior Counsel Salman Khurshid.
Previously –
The Karnataka Government was issued notice by the Supreme Court last week following the Karnataka High Court’s verdict that Upheld ban on hijab in Government schools and colleges.
On March 15, the High Court had upheld a Karnataka Government Order (GO) that empowered the hijab ban by Muslim female students in college campus.
The petitioners to the High Court were the girls who had been denied of attending classes on account of wearing hijab.
The Three-Judge bench of the then Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S Dixit and JM Khazi held that hijab is not a compulsory religious practice of Islam and that requirement of uniform is a reasonable restriction on the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Expression under Article 19(1)(a).
The Court also stated that the Government has the power to pass the GO.
In a previous hearing, the Court had stated that the Government of Karnataka had no prescriptions on the attire of uniforms in schools and that it is up to the institutions to impose restrictions.
Also, the comparison to Kendriya Vidyalayas is unreasonable due to the jurisdiction of it being under the Central Government.
Latest Arguments –
Senior Advocate Devadutt Kamat contested that an attire could only be restricted if it disrupts public order. He appeared for the petitioners.
Advocate Pasha further clarified that there must a misunderstanding between the words hijab and jilbab (a robe covering the woman from head to toe) and gave a quote stating the use of hijab being mandatory under the Quran which explains the use of hijab as a cloth that covers the identity and modesty of a Muslim woman.
This concluded the hearing at a point where things seem yet far from a conclusion. The case shall be continued on 12th September.