'Travesty of justice', Muslim Personal Law Board moves SC against HC verdict

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board AIMPLB has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Karnataka High Court judgment which upheld the ban on hijab in classrooms after holding that the wearing of headscarves by Muslim women was not an essential religious practiceThe board has moved the top court along with two other petitioners namely Munisa Bushra and Jaleesa Sultana Yaseen The plea said the high court judgment while dismissing the petitions has proceeded with erroneous reasons to address the issueThe plea said It is a case of direct discrimination against Muslim girls The High Court has created distinction between the principles laid down in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel by giving different contextual meaning as a case of discipline and on the other hand the practice of hijab is reflected as if it was a case disturbing the entire uniform that too when this minor variation of covering the head like the Sikhs do can be reasonably accommodated within the constitutional norm being part religious practicesThe 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 travesty of justice and the judgment also ignores the doctrine of reasonable accommodationThe plea said The determination of essentials under the principles of essential religious practice ERP had started with the idea of determination of essential religious practice that fell within the complete autonomy of the religious denomination in the matters of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to tenets of a religionThe plea contended that while dealing with the issue of protection of the fundamental rights the high court judgment has given completely erroneous interpretation to the concept of intelligible differentiaThe plea added that by grouping all the students in uniformity without acknowledging that such interpretation is not only against the prevailing practices in different parts of the country but also such accommodations are generally available for differently grouped students It is completely irrational and against the objective of maintaining diversity as contemplated in the Constitution of India it saidA clutch of pleas has been moved in the apex court challenging the high court decisionOn March 24 the Supreme Court declined to give any specific date to hear a plea challenging the Karnataka High Court order which dismissed all petitions seeking direction for permission to wear hijab in classroomsAnother plea filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed and Rahamathullah Kothwal said the high court order creates an unreasonable classification between the nonMuslim female students and the 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 othersThe plea said The impugned order is also in sheer violation of the Article 14 15 19 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution and also violates the core principles of the International Conventions that India is a signatory toIt further added Being aggrieved by the impugned Government Order as it is in violation of Indian constitution the petitioner had approached the Honble High Court by way of a Public Interest Litigation PIL petition challenging the validity of the sameThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever