The Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 26 indicated that it will be listing appeals against the Karnataka High Court’s verdict on the hijab case in the next two days. The appeals were mentioned before the court on Tuesday, Live Law reported, and Chief Justice NV Ramana said, “Wait for two days.” Multiple appeals have been filed before the Supreme Court against the High Court order that ruled that hijab is not an essential practice under Islam and that students must adhere to the dress code. On March 16, the apex court had agreed to list the pleas for hearing after Holi vacation. However, it had not given any specific date.
On March 15, the Karnataka High Court had dismissed a batch of petitions filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom. The prescription of school uniform is only a reasonable restriction, constitutionally permissible which the students cannot object to, the High Court had said.
Hours after the High Court upheld the hijab ban in classrooms, a Muslim student filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court against the High Court’s order, after which at least two other petitions were also filed. The plea filed through advocates Adeel Ahmed and Rahamathullah Kothwal said the High Court order creates an unreasonable classification between the Muslim and non-Muslim female students, and thereby is in straight violation of the concept of secularism which forms the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners are Mohamed Arif Jameel and others. Another plea, filed by two Muslim students, Manan and Niba Naaz, through advocate Anas Tanwir, said: "The petitioners most humbly submit that the High Court has erred in creating a dichotomy of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience wherein the court has inferred that those who follow a religion cannot have the right to conscience."
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has also moved the Supreme Court, saying that the High Court judgment, while dismissing the petitions, has proceeded with erroneous reasons to address the issue. The plea contended that laying too much emphasis on bringing "uniformity" in the uniform without accommodating a person of one religion 'to cover her hair with a piece of cloth' is a “travesty of justice,” and the judgment also ignores the doctrine of reasonable accommodation.