Supreme Court Hijab Ban Mumbai: On Friday, August 9, the Supreme Court halted a Mumbai private college’s order prohibiting students from wearing headscarves, hijabs, or badges on campus. While considering a plea submitted by three Muslim female students from Mumbai’s NG Acharya and DK Marathe Colleges, the Court issued the temporary injunction. The petitioners appealed the Bombay High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court stayed Mumbai college’s hijab ban until November 18, questioning if similar bans would apply to bindi or tilak. The Court emphasized students’ freedom of choice and criticized the college’s stance as ‘unfortunate.’ The college argued that allowing hijabs could lead to political exploitation. The Court permitted the college to address misuse and ruled that burqas are banned in classrooms, with no religious activities allowed.
Background
Recently, a private college in Mumbai issued a circular banning the wearing of hijabs, burqas, caps, and naqabs on campus. This decision sparked controversy and raised questions about religious freedom and individual choice within educational institutions.
Supreme Court’s Intervention
The Supreme Court stepped in to address this issue. Here are the key points from their recent ruling:
- Partial Stay: The court partially stayed the college’s circular, allowing students to continue wearing hijabs and caps on campus.
- Freedom of Choice: The court emphasized that students should have the freedom to choose their attire. It questioned why the college didn’t ban other religious symbols like tilak and bindi.
- Restrictions Remain: While hijabs and caps are allowed, burqas inside classrooms and religious activities on campus remain restricted.
- Next Steps: The court has issued a notice to the college administration, seeking a response by November 18. The college can return to court if there is any misuse of the interim order.
Which Mumbai college banned hijab?
NG Acharya & DK Marathe College, a private college located in Chembur, Mumbai, was at the center of a controversy surrounding the ban on hijabs. The college had issued an instruction prohibiting students from wearing hijabs, caps, or badges on campus, citing reasons of maintaining a uniform dress code and promoting a secular environment. However, this decision was met with resistance from Muslim students who felt that their right to freedom of religion was being infringed upon. The ban led to a legal battle, with the students challenging the decision in court, ultimately resulting in the Supreme Court staying the ban and allowing students to wear hijabs on campus until further notice.
Why is the Supreme Court banned from wearing hijab?
A 2-judge Supreme Court bench rendered a divided decision in the Karnataka Hijab Ban case. In agreement with the ruling of the Karnataka High Court, Justice Hemant Gupta maintained the ban on the headscarf. However, Justice Dhulia overturned the ruling made by the High Court.
According to Justice Gupta, the Karnataka government had every authority to forbid the Hijab at educational institutions. He said that the policies of the State government supported the brotherhood of all communities. In a secular school, allowing pupils to wear the hijab might make some students feel inequitable.
During the announcement of the judgment, Justice Dhulia said that his first priority was the girl child’s education. It is an issue of decision. He stated, “Nothing more, nothing less.” He noted in his Judgment that the rights to equality and free speech ought to have been the main topics of discussion during the proceedings.
Regarding Muslim female students, there are numerous rights at stake in the Hijab Ban case. These include the freedoms of speech, privacy, access to education, equality, & the right to wear clothing. That is appropriate for one’s gender and level of dress.
Although the Hijab’s importance to Islam, neither judge offered any commentary today. It’s interesting to note that, even among the parties, most agreed that the lawsuit shouldn’t center on the issue of whether donning a hijab constitutes an essential religious practice. On the other hand, ERP arguments took up 14 of the approximately 25 hours of proceedings.