The Evening Wrap: Hijab not an essential practice of Islam, rules Karnataka HC

Wearing of hijab (head scarf) by Muslim women does not form a part of essential religious practices in Islamic faith and it is not protected under the right to freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, the High Court of Karnataka declared on March 15. The court ruled that prescription of school uniform does not violate either the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a) or the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the restriction against wearing of hijab in educational institutions is only a reasonable restriction constitutionally permissible, which the students cannot object to. The court upheld the legality of the Karnataka Government’s February 5 order prescribing wearing of uniforms in schools and pre-university colleges under provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice J.M. Khazi while rejecting all the petitions filed by nine Muslim girl students studying in two government pre-university colleges in Udupi district. The petitioners had argued that wearing of hijab is a part of essential religious practice as per Islamic faith and college authorities cannot prevent them from attending classes wearing hijab. The bench said that no case has been made out to initiate disciplinary enquiry against authorities of the Government Pre-University College for Girls, Udupi, and office-bearers of its College Development Committee for preventing five petitioner-girl students of the college from entering the classroom wearing hijab. The bench, after hearing the petitions for 23 hours spread over 11 days, had reserved the verdict on February 25. The bench, in its interim order passed on February 10, had restrained all students regardless of their religion or faith from wearing saffron shawls (bhagwa), scarfs, hijab, religious flags or the like in classrooms until further orders on the petitions. Ataullah Punjalkatte, State president, Campus Front of India (CFI), a student body supporting the fight of the six girls in Udupi to wear hijab to classrooms, said they were disappointed with the High Court order. “We feel the court has only given a verdict, but not justice. We will continue our fight for hijab legally at the appropriate forums,” he said. Supreme Court stays ban on Media One channel The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the Central government’s decision to revoke the security clearance of Kerala-based news and current affairs TV channel Media One “on the basis of intelligence inputs which are sensitive and secretive in nature”. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, heading a three-judge Bench, said the government’s decision had effectively shut down the business of media house Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited, which runs Media One in the name of “national security and public order” without fully disclosing the specific reasons for revoking their security clearance. The Bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, said the company was “surely entitled” to know the “particulars” of the ban. Senior advocate Dushyant Dave and advocate Haris Beeran, representing the company, said if the court allowed this to happen “no media or publication is safe. Everybody can be shut down anytime”. After taking a 10-minute break to peruse the contents of the government files based on which the media company’s security clearance was not renewed in an order on January 31, 2022, the court observed that “at the present stage, we are of the view that a case for interim relief has been made out in behalf of the petitioners [media house] with due regards to the contents of the files perused by the court”. “We accordingly direct that, pending further orders, the order of the Union government of January 31, 2022 revoking security clearance to Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited shall remain stayed,” the court directed. The Bench directed that the channel would continue operations as before January 31. The court asked the Centre to file its counter affidavit before March 26. The Bench said the issue whether the internal files of the government ought to be shared with the company to pursue its challenge against the ban would be “expressly kept open to be resolved”. The apex court referred to a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which, while confirming an earlier Single Judge order upholding the government ban, had noted that the government files did not dwell on the “impact, gravity and depth” of revoking the licence. The High Court had said the files did not contain “too many details”. “What you have merely said in the High Court is that the Ministry of Home Affairs has denied security clearance based on intelligence inputs which are sensitive and secretive in nature... Now their business is shut down. Surely, they are entitled to the particulars. Otherwise, how do they defend themselves? Disclose your files to them... What is the difficulty in disclosing files? It is after all a licence to run a TV channel... Disclose the files,” Justice Chandrachud addressed Additional Solicitor Generals S.V. Raju and K.M. Nataraj, for the government. Dave said “heavens are not going to fall” if the channel was allowed to broadcast news and current affairs. “I am not going to bring the government down... How can a democratically elected government stand before a court and plead ‘national security’. Over 385 journalists are without a job. I have to pay monthly wages to the tune of ₹83 lakh and there are millions of my viewers...” he submitted. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who was not appearing in the case but was watching the proceedings, intervened to say he was representing a media house in “identical case” regarding the non-renewal of licence of the government. “These matters have to be taken up urgently by this court,” he said. “The Cable TV and Network Act does not give the government the power to deny me security clearance... For six weeks, I have been shut down without a reason simply because we are run by members of a minority community... What else is it?” Dave stated. Raju denied the allegation and asked for time to file an affidavit. Nataraj said the company had “browbeaten” the High Court judge, who upheld the government ban, in a YouTube video. Dave said the video had nothing to do with the company and denied the charge. “Ultimately, criticism of an order or judgment is part of a citizen’s right so long as they are not casting aspersions on the motives of the judge,” Justice Chandrachud observed. Raju argued that the stay of the January 31 ban does not automatically entail renewal of the licence. Dave said the company had applied for renewal of its licence in May 2021. It was due to expire in September the same year. The government’s ban came in January 2022, two months after the expiry of the licence. “So, you allowed them to operate after September 2021, did you not,” Justice Chandrachud asked the government. Russian strikes hit apartment building in Kyiv A series of Russian strikes hit a residential neighbourhood of Ukraine’s capital on Tuesday, igniting a huge fire and frantic rescue effort in a 15-story Kyiv apartment building, AP reported. At least one person was killed and others remain trapped inside. The Ukrainian military said in a statement that the strikes were artillery strikes. They hit the Svyatoshynskyi district of western Kyiv, adjacent to the suburb of Irpin that has seen some of the worst battles of the war. Flames shot out of the apartment building as firefighters rescued people from ladders. Smoke choked the air. A firefighter at the scene confirmed one person died and that several have been rescued alive but others are still inside as rescuers try to reach them. Russian forces also stepped up strikes overnight on the northwest suburbs of Irpin, Hostomel and Bucha, the head of the Kyiv region Oleksiy Kuleba said on Ukrainian television. Russian forces also renewed efforts on Tuesday to capture the important port city of Mariupol in the south, and unleashed new artillery strikes on downtown Kharkiv in the east, the general staff of Ukraine’s armed forces said on Facebook. Supreme Court tears into practice of ‘sealed cover jurisprudence’ Two separate Benches of the Supreme Court on Tuesday tore into the “sealed cover jurisprudence” practised by the government in courts. The court was critical about how the government and its agencies file reports in sealed envelopes directly in court without sharing the contents with the opposite party. This is usually done on the ground that the contents are highly sensitive in nature, and may injure even national security or “public order”. Another reason given by State agencies, mostly in money-laundering cases, is disclosure would affect ongoing investigation. Being kept in the dark about the material contained in a sealed cover report, the petitioners are crippled in mounting a defence, not knowing what they are supposed to defend against. At times, their cases, mostly involving fundamental rights like personal liberty, are dismissed on the basis of the secret contents ensconced in the sealed covers. “Please do not give sealed cover reports in this court. We will not accept it,” Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana admonished a counsel in a criminal appeal filed by a man against the Bihar government. The CJI’s remarks were recounted by senior advocate Dushyant Dave to a Bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud later in the day as soon as the hearing began on the government ban of Media One channel. “I am very averse to what is called the ‘sealed cover jurisprudence’,” Justice Chandrachud reacted. The Centre, in the Media One case, had come with its files to hand over to the court in a sealed cover. The court asked why the government could not disclose the files to the channel. It kept the issue open for examination. Mixed signals from Ukraine govt. delayed students: Jaishankar tells RS Students delayed leaving their universities in Ukraine due to “confusing signals” given out by the Ukrainian government, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said on Tuesday, as he defended the government against questions from the Opposition and credited Prime Minister Narendra Modi for effecting a ceasefire in Sumy on March 8 by speaking to the Russian and Ukrainian presidents personally. Giving a ‘suo-moto’ statement in Rajya Sabha on the situation in Ukraine, Jaishankar said at the start of “Operation Ganga”, about 4,000 students had flown out, but about 18,000 Indian citizens were caught in the conflict, when Russian President Vladimir Putin launched operations on February 24. “Despite our efforts, a large majority of students elected to continue staying in Ukraine,” Jaishankar told the House. “Some universities actively discouraged and showed reluctance to offer on-line studies… The political signals were confusing as well. Public urgings not to be taken in by alarmism and reports of force withdrawals created a confusing picture,” he added, quoting from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s speech that told people not to panic and leave. To a specific question from the Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament Sushmita Dev about whether the four advisories issued by the government between February 15 and 22 were merely “precautionary” and didn’t carry sufficient urgency for the students, Jaishankar said any advisory is taken “seriously”. The government faced questions about the delay in issuing advisories, compared to other countries like the U.S., UK and others that had told citizens to leave earlier, from several members of the Opposition including Mallikarjun Kharge (Congress), Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD) and John Brittas (CPI). Jaishankar also clarified that Indian officials were present inside the conflict area and had personally been present in the “vicinity” of Sumy to evacuate the last of the students in what he called the “most challenging” and “daunting” part of the operation. The Minister detailed the government’s actions under “Operation Ganga”, including setting up a 100-personnel control centre to take calls and organise assistance for Indians, stating that 47 MEA officials were dispatched to the region to help with travel facilities, and 90 flights were operated, including 76 civilian aircraft and 14 Indian air force flights. He called on members to appreciate Embassy personnel and officials who “have gone to extraordinary lengths in difficult circumstances to ensure that Operation Ganga is successful”, and worked at border checkpoints, liaised with local government and ensured boarding and lodging for the students, comments which were followed by applause in the House. However, Jaishankar did not answer a number of other questions on specifics of how the government proposes to help returning students with their incomplete education, telling the House that the government will “address the issue with full responsibility”. Answering questions about India’s stand at the UN Security Council, and the impact of the conflict, the Minister said the Ukraine conflict “has major economic implications”, indicating that the government is assessing how to deal with the rise in energy and commodity prices. “However, the House will appreciate that there is all the more need for an Aatmanirbhar (Self-reliant) Bharat,” he added. In brief During the Zero Hour in the Rajya Sabha, DMK’s P. Wilson stated that the Union government owed ₹20,287 crore under 38 heads to the government of Tamil Nadu. Out of this, the GST compensation alone amounted to nearly ₹10,000 crore. “When you took away the power of the States to collect indirect taxes by legislating GST Act, it was on the promise that the States’ shares would be promptly paid. It was on this premise that the States’ consent was obtained. By delaying payment, you are committing breach of trust and violating your undertaking made on the floor of Parliament,” he said. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 15 MARCH 2022 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( Hijab not an essential practice of Islam, rules Karnataka High Court [Wearing of hijab (head scarf) by Muslim women does not form a part of essential religious practices in Islamic faith]( and it is not protected under the right to freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, the High Court of Karnataka declared on March 15. The court ruled that prescription of school uniform does not violate either the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a) or the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the restriction against wearing of hijab in educational institutions is only a reasonable restriction constitutionally permissible, which the students cannot object to. [A view of High Court of Karnataka. File] The court upheld the legality of the Karnataka Government’s February 5 order prescribing wearing of uniforms in schools and pre-university colleges under provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice J.M. Khazi while rejecting all the petitions filed by nine Muslim girl students studying in two government pre-university colleges in Udupi district. The petitioners had argued that wearing of hijab is a part of essential religious practice as per Islamic faith and college authorities cannot prevent them from attending classes wearing hijab. The bench said that no case has been made out to initiate disciplinary enquiry against authorities of the Government Pre-University College for Girls, Udupi, and office-bearers of its College Development Committee for preventing five petitioner-girl students of the college from entering the classroom wearing hijab. The bench, after hearing the petitions for 23 hours spread over 11 days, had reserved the verdict on February 25. The bench, in its interim order passed on February 10, had restrained all students regardless of their religion or faith from wearing saffron shawls (bhagwa), scarfs, hijab, religious flags or the like in classrooms until further orders on the petitions. Ataullah Punjalkatte, State president, Campus Front of India (CFI), a student body supporting the fight of the six girls in Udupi to wear hijab to classrooms, said they were disappointed with the High Court order. “We feel the court has only given a verdict, but not justice. We will continue our fight for hijab legally at the appropriate forums,” he said. Supreme Court stays ban on Media One channel The [Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the Central government’s decision to revoke the security clearance]( of Kerala-based news and current affairs TV channel Media One “on the basis of intelligence inputs which are sensitive and secretive in nature”. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, heading a three-judge Bench, said the government’s decision had effectively shut down the business of media house Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited, which runs Media One in the name of “national security and public order” without fully disclosing the specific reasons for revoking their security clearance. [A view of the Supreme Court of India. File] The Bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, said the company was “surely entitled” to know the “particulars” of the ban. Senior advocate Dushyant Dave and advocate Haris Beeran, representing the company, said if the court allowed this to happen “no media or publication is safe. Everybody can be shut down anytime”. After taking a 10-minute break to peruse the contents of the government files based on which the media company’s security clearance was not renewed in an order on January 31, 2022, the court observed that “at the present stage, we are of the view that a case for interim relief has been made out in behalf of the petitioners [media house] with due regards to the contents of the files perused by the court”. “We accordingly direct that, pending further orders, the order of the Union government of January 31, 2022 revoking security clearance to Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited shall remain stayed,” the court directed. The Bench directed that the channel would continue operations as before January 31. The court asked the Centre to file its counter affidavit before March 26. The Bench said the issue whether the internal files of the government ought to be shared with the company to pursue its challenge against the ban would be “expressly kept open to be resolved”. The apex court referred to a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which, while confirming an earlier Single Judge order upholding the government ban, had noted that the government files did not dwell on the “impact, gravity and depth” of revoking the licence. The High Court had said the files did not contain “too many details”. “What you have merely said in the High Court is that the Ministry of Home Affairs has denied security clearance based on intelligence inputs which are sensitive and secretive in nature... Now their business is shut down. Surely, they are entitled to the particulars. Otherwise, how do they defend themselves? Disclose your files to them... What is the difficulty in disclosing files? It is after all a licence to run a TV channel... Disclose the files,” Justice Chandrachud addressed Additional Solicitor Generals S.V. Raju and K.M. Nataraj, for the government. Dave said “heavens are not going to fall” if the channel was allowed to broadcast news and current affairs. “I am not going to bring the government down... How can a democratically elected government stand before a court and plead ‘national security’. Over 385 journalists are without a job. I have to pay monthly wages to the tune of ₹83 lakh and there are millions of my viewers...” he submitted. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who was not appearing in the case but was watching the proceedings, intervened to say he was representing a media house in “identical case” regarding the non-renewal of licence of the government. “These matters have to be taken up urgently by this court,” he said. “The Cable TV and Network Act does not give the government the power to deny me security clearance... For six weeks, I have been shut down without a reason simply because we are run by members of a minority community... What else is it?” Dave stated. Raju denied the allegation and asked for time to file an affidavit. Nataraj said the company had “browbeaten” the High Court judge, who upheld the government ban, in a YouTube video. Dave said the video had nothing to do with the company and denied the charge. “Ultimately, criticism of an order or judgment is part of a citizen’s right so long as they are not casting aspersions on the motives of the judge,” Justice Chandrachud observed. Raju argued that the stay of the January 31 ban does not automatically entail renewal of the licence. Dave said the company had applied for renewal of its licence in May 2021. It was due to expire in September the same year. The government’s ban came in January 2022, two months after the expiry of the licence. “So, you allowed them to operate after September 2021, did you not,” Justice Chandrachud asked the government. Russian strikes hit apartment building in Kyiv A series of Russian strikes hit a residential neighbourhood of Ukraine’s capital on Tuesday, igniting a huge fire and frantic rescue effort in a 15-story Kyiv apartment building, AP reported. At least one person was killed and others remain trapped inside. The Ukrainian military said in a statement that the strikes were artillery strikes. They hit the Svyatoshynskyi district of western Kyiv, adjacent to the suburb of Irpin that has seen some of the worst battles of the war. Flames shot out of the apartment building as firefighters rescued people from ladders. Smoke choked the air. A firefighter at the scene confirmed one person died and that several have been rescued alive but others are still inside as rescuers try to reach them. Russian forces also stepped up strikes overnight on the northwest suburbs of Irpin, Hostomel and Bucha, the head of the Kyiv region Oleksiy Kuleba said on Ukrainian television. Russian forces also renewed efforts on Tuesday to capture the important port city of Mariupol in the south, and unleashed new artillery strikes on downtown Kharkiv in the east, the general staff of Ukraine’s armed forces said on Facebook. Supreme Court tears into practice of ‘sealed cover jurisprudence’ Two separate Benches of the [Supreme Court on Tuesday tore into the “sealed cover jurisprudence”]( by the government in courts. The court was critical about how the government and its agencies file reports in sealed envelopes directly in court without sharing the contents with the opposite party. This is usually done on the ground that the contents are highly sensitive in nature, and may injure even national security or “public order”. Another reason given by State agencies, mostly in money-laundering cases, is disclosure would affect ongoing investigation. Being kept in the dark about the material contained in a sealed cover report, the petitioners are crippled in mounting a defence, not knowing what they are supposed to defend against. At times, their cases, mostly involving fundamental rights like personal liberty, are dismissed on the basis of the secret contents ensconced in the sealed covers. “Please do not give sealed cover reports in this court. We will not accept it,” Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana admonished a counsel in a criminal appeal filed by a man against the Bihar government. The CJI’s remarks were recounted by senior advocate Dushyant Dave to a Bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud later in the day as soon as the hearing began on the government ban of Media One channel. “I am very averse to what is called the ‘sealed cover jurisprudence’,” Justice Chandrachud reacted. The Centre, in the Media One case, had come with its files to hand over to the court in a sealed cover. The court asked why the government could not disclose the files to the channel. It kept the issue open for examination. Mixed signals from Ukraine govt. delayed students: Jaishankar tells RS  Students delayed leaving their universities in [Ukraine due to “confusing signals” given out by the Ukrainian government,]( External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said on Tuesday, as he defended the government against questions from the Opposition and credited Prime Minister Narendra Modi for effecting a ceasefire in Sumy on March 8 by speaking to the Russian and Ukrainian presidents personally. [External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar speaks in the Rajya Sabha during the second part of Budget Session of Parliament, in New Delhi on March 15, 2022. ] Giving a ‘suo-moto’ statement in Rajya Sabha on the situation in Ukraine, Jaishankar said at the start of “Operation Ganga”, about 4,000 students had flown out, but about 18,000 Indian citizens were caught in the conflict, when Russian President Vladimir Putin launched operations on February 24. “Despite our efforts, a large majority of students elected to continue staying in Ukraine,” Jaishankar told the House. “Some universities actively discouraged and showed reluctance to offer on-line studies… The political signals were confusing as well. Public urgings not to be taken in by alarmism and reports of force withdrawals created a confusing picture,” he added, quoting from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s speech that told people not to panic and leave. To a specific question from the Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament Sushmita Dev about whether the four advisories issued by the government between February 15 and 22 were merely “precautionary” and didn’t carry sufficient urgency for the students, Jaishankar said any advisory is taken “seriously”. The government faced questions about the delay in issuing advisories, compared to other countries like the U.S., UK and others that had told citizens to leave earlier, from several members of the Opposition including Mallikarjun Kharge (Congress), Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD) and John Brittas (CPI). Jaishankar also clarified that Indian officials were present inside the conflict area and had personally been present in the “vicinity” of Sumy to evacuate the last of the students in what he called the “most challenging” and “daunting” part of the operation. The Minister detailed the government’s actions under “Operation Ganga”, including setting up a 100-personnel control centre to take calls and organise assistance for Indians, stating that 47 MEA officials were dispatched to the region to help with travel facilities, and 90 flights were operated, including 76 civilian aircraft and 14 Indian air force flights. He called on members to appreciate Embassy personnel and officials who “have gone to extraordinary lengths in difficult circumstances to ensure that Operation Ganga is successful”, and worked at border checkpoints, liaised with local government and ensured boarding and lodging for the students, comments which were followed by applause in the House. However, Jaishankar did not answer a number of other questions on specifics of how the government proposes to help returning students with their incomplete education, telling the House that the government will “address the issue with full responsibility”. Answering questions about India’s stand at the UN Security Council, and the impact of the conflict, the Minister said the Ukraine conflict “has major economic implications”, indicating that the government is assessing how to deal with the rise in energy and commodity prices. “However, the House will appreciate that there is all the more need for an Aatmanirbhar (Self-reliant) Bharat,” he added. In brief During the Zero Hour in the Rajya Sabha, DMK’s P. Wilson stated that the Union government owed ₹20,287 crore under 38 heads to the government of Tamil Nadu. Out of this, the GST compensation alone amounted to nearly ₹10,000 crore. “When you took away the power of the States to collect indirect taxes by legislating GST Act, it was on the promise that the States’ shares would be promptly paid. It was on this premise that the States’ consent was obtained. By delaying payment, you are committing breach of trust and violating your undertaking made on the floor of Parliament,” he said. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. Today‘s Top Picks [[Watch | How broom grass is harvested in Assam] Watch | How broom grass is harvested in Assam]( [[Centre owes Tamil Nadu ₹20,287 crore, says DMK member in Rajya Sabha] Centre owes Tamil Nadu ₹20,287 crore, says DMK member in Rajya Sabha]( [[Amid churn in the Congress, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra holds meeting to review U.P. poll performance] Amid churn in the Congress, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra holds meeting to review U.P. poll performance]( [[Bombay High Court refuses interim relief to Maharashtra Minister Nawab Malik] Bombay High Court refuses interim relief to Maharashtra Minister Nawab Malik]( Copyright @ 2021, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](