April 03, 2025 04:45 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
West Bengal: Mamata Banerjee accuses BJP, CPI (M) for SC verdict on SSC recruitment, vows to support affected teachers | Supreme Court stays deforestation in Hyderabad's Kancha Gachibowli amid protests | Modi a great friend of mine but not treating US right: Donald Trump announcing reciprocal tariffs on India | Crushing defeat for Mamata Banerjee: BJP reacts to Supreme Court's SSC recruitment order | DMK to challenge Waqf (Amendment) Bill in Supreme Court, announces Stalin | Supreme Court upholds Calcutta HC order quashing 25,000 appointments by SSC in Bengal | In a major boost for tourism, Shimla to get Asia's longest ropeway spanning 13.79 kilometers | Karnataka govt hikes sales tax on diesel, price goes up by Rs. 2 | 'Heard India will be dropping its tariffs substantially': Donald Trump ahead of announcing reciprocal tariff | Opposition MPs decide to vote against Waqf Amendment Bill in Parliament tomorrow
Hijab Row

Supreme Court says no to urgent hearing on hijab

| @indiablooms | Mar 24, 2022, at 08:22 pm

New Delhi/UNI: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to give an urgent hearing to a plea by a lawyer challenging the Karnataka High Court move to uphold the ban on the hijab in educational institutions of Karnataka.

Chief Justice N V Ramana did not list the matter urgently.

"We will see it," he said.

Senior lawyer Devdutt Kamat told the Supreme Court that examinations were approaching and so this matter needed to be listed urgently.

The Chief Justice said this had nothing to do with the examinations.

"Don't sensationalise the issue," he said, and refused to give an urgent hearing.

Kamat said that the students will lose one year as they were not being allowed to enter the schools.

But the apex court refused to give an urgent hearing.

The High Court of Karnataka had ruled that the practice of hijab was not an essential practice under Islam and the matter did not fall within the ambit of Article 25 of the Constitution.

The court held that the prescription of school uniform was only a reasonable restriction which is constitutionally permissible which the students cannot object to.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.
Close menu