[ad_1]
New Delhi, February 16
Accusing the Karnataka Government of ‘choosing’ on the scarf alone and making a “hostile discrimination”, petitioners difficult the ban on hijab in instructional establishments instructed the Karnataka High Court that Muslim women must be allowed to put on scarf, saying India was a rustic the place individuals flaunted various spiritual symbols – pendant, Hijab, bindi and turban.
“I am only showing the vast diversity of religious symbols in all sections of the society. Why is the government picking on Hijab alone and making this hostile discrimination? Aren’t bangles religious symbols?” senior counsel Ravivarma Kumar instructed a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi throughout a stay streamed listening to.
The Bench will resume the listening to on Thursday.
Several Muslim women have challenged the Karnataka authorities’s February 5 order limiting college students from sporting garments that might disturb peace, concord and regulation and order.
The Karnataka High Court had restrained college students from going to instructional establishments sporting spiritual costume. The Supreme Court had on Friday refused to intervene within the Karnataka hijab controversy even because it asserted that it’s going to defend the constitutional rights of everybody and can take up the matter on the applicable time.
Maintaining that the aim of training was to advertise plurality and never homogeneity, Kumar stated, “Classrooms should be a place for recognition and reflection of the diversity in society.”
Citing a survey, petitioner girls’ counsel Ravi Varma Kumar said people of the country sport various religious symbols such as pendant, crucifixion, Hijab, Burqa, bangles, Bindi on the forehead and the turban.
“Most Hindu, Muslim and Sikh women cover their head outside the home. Every college going student wears a dupatta, no matter what their religion is,” he said.
“This discrimination in opposition to Muslim women is only on the idea of faith and therefore a hostile discrimination, which violates Article 15 of the Constitution. We aren’t heard however straightaway punished. This is draconian,” he argued.
According to Rule 11 of the 1995 Rules associated to the Education Department, instructional establishments have been required to present a discover to the scholars and oldsters about altering uniforms no less than a yr prematurely, he submitted.
[ad_2]