Faced with the request for early hearing just a day after a similar effort by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, Chief Justice of India NV Ramana reiterated that the SC would take up all these petitions at an appropriate time. “We are duty-bound to protect the constitutional rights of every individual, irrespective of the community or religious denomination she/he belonged to.”
Apart from the student petitioners before the SC – 17-year-old Aishat Shifa and 18-year-old Tharin Begam- Youth Congress president BV Srinivas too filed a petition seeking enforcement of Muslim girls’ “religious right” to wear hijab in educational institutions, signalling that Congress is throwing its political weight behind the Muslim students during the intense electioneering in five states.
The bench of CJI Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli brushed aside the submissions, saying all issues will be considered by HC and at an appropriate time by SC.
“We are watching what is happening in the state as well as in the HC hearing. You also should think whether it is proper to bring these things to the national level. We are constitutionally bound and will protect if there is violation of fundamental or constitutional rights, not just of one but every community. We are bound to protect the constitutional rights of every individual. We will intervene at the appropriate time,” CJI Ramanna said as senior advocate Devadatta Kamat, counsel for the petitioners, pressed for urgent hearing.
The CJI’s stand, which came against the backdrop of pro-hijab demonstrations in different parts of the state, was supported by solicitor general Tushar Mehta who appeared for the Karnataka government. “Let the issue be not made religious or political. The HC should be allowed to decide the matter after hearing all sides,” he said.
“HC’s interim order has irrationally directed all students not to disclose their religious identity when in school. This interim order has far reaching implications, not only for the Muslim community but also for other faiths,” Kamat said.
He also attempted to drag Sikhs into the controversy as he made a case that the HC’s order was violative of the Constitution’s promise of religious freedom under Article 25. “For example, Sikhs wear turbans when they go to schools or colleges. The HC, in the midst of arguments, orders that all students should go to school without disclosing their religious identities. This amounts to complete suspension of Article 25 rights under the Constitution,” he said.
“Please hear us on what should be the interim arrangement. The girls are not asking for change in the uniform. They want to wear headscarves matching with the uniform. The SC’s decision on interim arrangement would be acceptable to all,” Kamat said as he made repeated pleas for urgent hearing.
CJI Ramana responded, “We do not want to express anything on merit. Don’t push these issues to a larger level. That exactly is the state’s stand – let us not make it communal or political, and let the HC decide the constitutional question in the issue.”
