Firstpost
  • Home
  • Video Shows
    Vantage Firstpost America Firstpost Africa First Sports
  • World
    US News
  • Explainers
  • News
    India Opinion Cricket Tech Entertainment Sports Health Photostories
  • Asia Cup 2025
Apple Incorporated Modi ji Justin Trudeau Trending

Sections

  • Home
  • Live TV
  • Videos
  • Shows
  • World
  • India
  • Explainers
  • Opinion
  • Sports
  • Cricket
  • Health
  • Tech/Auto
  • Entertainment
  • Web Stories
  • Business
  • Impact Shorts

Shows

  • Vantage
  • Firstpost America
  • Firstpost Africa
  • First Sports
  • Fast and Factual
  • Between The Lines
  • Flashback
  • Live TV

Events

  • Raisina Dialogue
  • Independence Day
  • Champions Trophy
  • Delhi Elections 2025
  • Budget 2025
  • US Elections 2024
  • Firstpost Defence Summit
Trending:
  • PM Modi in Manipur
  • Charlie Kirk killer
  • Sushila Karki
  • IND vs PAK
  • India-US ties
  • New human organ
  • Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale Movie Review
fp-logo
'Will right to dress also mean right to undress?' asks Supreme Court in hijab case hearing
Whatsapp Facebook Twitter
Whatsapp Facebook Twitter
Apple Incorporated Modi ji Justin Trudeau Trending

Sections

  • Home
  • Live TV
  • Videos
  • Shows
  • World
  • India
  • Explainers
  • Opinion
  • Sports
  • Cricket
  • Health
  • Tech/Auto
  • Entertainment
  • Web Stories
  • Business
  • Impact Shorts

Shows

  • Vantage
  • Firstpost America
  • Firstpost Africa
  • First Sports
  • Fast and Factual
  • Between The Lines
  • Flashback
  • Live TV

Events

  • Raisina Dialogue
  • Independence Day
  • Champions Trophy
  • Delhi Elections 2025
  • Budget 2025
  • US Elections 2024
  • Firstpost Defence Summit
  • Home
  • India
  • 'Will right to dress also mean right to undress?' asks Supreme Court in hijab case hearing

'Will right to dress also mean right to undress?' asks Supreme Court in hijab case hearing

Press Trust of India • September 7, 2022, 23:01:26 IST
Whatsapp Facebook Twitter

The SC was hearing arguments by the lawyer for one of the petitioners challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict declining to lift the state government’s ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state

Advertisement
Subscribe Join Us
Add as a preferred source on Google
Prefer
Firstpost
On
Google
'Will right to dress also mean right to undress?' asks Supreme Court in hijab case hearing

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked whether right to dress will also mean right to undress after a submission was made in the Karnataka Hijab case that right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution includes choice of dress. The poser by the apex court came during the hearing of arguments by the lawyer for one of the petitioners challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict declining to lift the state government’s ban on Hijab in educational institutions of the state. “You cannot take it to an illogical end,” a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia said when a previous judgement of the apex court was cited by senior advocate Devadatt Kamat and an argument raised regarding Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution and the freedom to dress. When the bench asked “Will right to dress mean right to undress also?,” Kamat responded to say “nobody is undressing in school. Kamat referred to the Karnataka government’s order of February 5, 2022, by which it had banned wearing clothes that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in schools and colleges and claimed it is targeting only one community. The order was challenged in the high court by some Muslim girl students. “It may not be right. Because one community wants to come with a headscarf. another community is following the dress code,” the bench observed. Kamat, who also referred to “positive secularism”, said the state must exercise reasonable accommodation. “Your lordships have accepted the concept of positive secularism.” Referring to a previous judgement of the apex court, Kamat argued that secularism does not mean that students of only one faith will not display their religious identity. The court also made it clear that the question in the Karnataka Hijab ban matter is only about the restriction in schools as nobody is prohibited from wearing it anywhere else they want. The bench was told that the matter be referred to a five-judge constitution bench. Kamat argued that if a girl, in the exercise of her rights under Articles 19, 21, or 25 of the Constitution, decides to wear a Hijab, then can the State put a prohibition that will violate her rights. The bench orally observed, “The question is nobody is prohibiting you from wearing Hijab. You can wear it wherever you want. The only restriction is in the school. We are only concerned with that question.” At the outset, Kamat said his endeavour is to persuade the bench to consider reference of this matter under Article 145 (3) of the Constitution. Article 145 (3) says the minimum number of judges, who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article 143, shall be five. The senior advocate argued that the bench has to be satisfied that this is a case that requires a reference under Article 145 (3). “I endeavour to persuade your lordships to take this course of action,” he said, adding this is not a matter which is simply related to a violation of a statute, or a rule. “This case involves primarily a basic question as to whether the State has failed in its obligation to provide for reasonable accommodation, which is a Constitutional principle adopted by your lordships, for the exercise of a citizens’ rights under Articles 19, 21, and 25,” Kamat said, adding that the petitioner is not challenging the prescription of uniform in the school. While Article 19 deals with the protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc, Article 21 pertains to the protection of life and personal liberty. Article 25 of the Constitution deals with freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion. During the arguments, Kamat referred to a circular of the Kendriya Vidyalaya and said it prescribes a uniform and makes a reasonable accommodation for Muslim girls to wear a headscarf. He also referred to a judgement of the constitutional court of South Africa in the case of a girl who wanted to wear a nose ring in school. “Whatever little I know, nose pin is not part of any religious practice,” Justice Gupta said, adding, “Mangalsutra is, but not the nose ring”. The bench observed that all over the world, women wear earrings and it is not a case of religious practice. “My impression is, no other country has this kind of a diversification as in our country,” Justice Gupta said. When Kamat referred to judgements from the US, the bench asked, “How could we compare USA and Canada with our country?” “We are very conservative.,” said the bench, adding these judgements are given in the context of their society. Read all the Latest News , Trending News ,  Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Tags
Supreme Court Hijab row Karnataka hijab row Hijab Case
End of Article
Latest News
Find us on YouTube
Subscribe
End of Article

Impact Shorts

'New dawn': PM Modi meets Manipur violence victims in first visit since 2023 unrest

'New dawn': PM Modi meets Manipur violence victims in first visit since 2023 unrest

Prime Minister Modi visited Churachandpur, Manipur, meeting displaced people from ethnic clashes. Modi laid foundation stones for 14 development projects worth over ₹7,300 crore in Churachandpur. Opposition criticized Modi's visit as "too little, too late" and questioned its impact on healing wounds.

More Impact Shorts

Top Stories

Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?

Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?

As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland

As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland

Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar

Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar

Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe

Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe

Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?

Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?

As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland

As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland

Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar

Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar

Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe

Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe

Top Shows

Vantage Firstpost America Firstpost Africa First Sports

QUICK LINKS

  • Mumbai Rains
Latest News About Firstpost
Most Searched Categories
  • Web Stories
  • World
  • India
  • Explainers
  • Opinion
  • Sports
  • Cricket
  • Tech/Auto
  • Entertainment
  • IPL 2025
NETWORK18 SITES
  • News18
  • Money Control
  • CNBC TV18
  • Forbes India
  • Advertise with us
  • Sitemap
Firstpost Logo

is on YouTube

Subscribe Now

Copyright @ 2024. Firstpost - All Rights Reserved

About Us Contact Us Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms Of Use
Home Video Shorts Live TV