Hijab row: High Court requests students to maintain peace
The court has full faith in the wisdom and virtue in public at large, it hopes same should put in practice”, the court said.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has adjourned the hearing of a batch of writ petitions seeking to wear hijabs in colleges tomorrow. Meanwhile, the court has requested the students' community and the public to maintain peace and tranquillity.
Justice Krishna S. Dixit has passed an interim order following the request made by Advocate General Prabhulinga Navadgi. Court advised the students not to indulge in any kind of Galata or protest during the hearing of the writ petition. “The court has full faith in the wisdom and virtue in public at large, it hopes same should put in practice”, the court said.
The Advocate General submitted that he was told by the highest authority concerned that there are protests and the untoward incidents that occurred in the state in the midst of hearing the petition. He requested the court to pass an interim order to direct the students and public not to indulge any kind of protests in the state.
Petitioner’s Advocate Devadatt Kamat agreed upon the submission of the AG, however, he cautioned that any blanket interim order would affect the students who are not before the court. He further submits that with regard to his clients are concerned, they are not indulging any protest or rallies when matter is pending.
Further, he submits that state orders directing uniforms are mandatory in the schools and asking not to wear hijab is violets the article 19 and 21 of the Consitution.
He concluded that wearing the hijab is a complete right to essential practice on Islamic faith, the state government order violet the fundamental rights of the petitioners.
The public order passed by the state government does not have any constitutional muster, the state has no power to exercise such an act and it has no right to snatch the rights of the petitioner by public order.
Considering the gravity and urgency of the case, Petitioner’s advocate requested the court to pass an order at the earliest.