During the hearing of the Hijab case in the Supreme Court, there was a heated debate

A great debate took place during the Supreme Court hearing on the Hijab case: Advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that not allowing a girl student inside a classroom just because she was wearing a hijab also violated Article 15 (the state discriminates against anyone on the basis of caste, sex, religion). don’t).

An important hearing was held in the Supreme Court today in the case of wearing hijab. Advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for one of the petitioners argued that I am referring to the findings of the Justice Sachar Committee report. It has been concluded that Muslim women are being discriminated against due to the practice of wearing hijab, burqa etc.

Sondhi cited a decision by the Supreme Court of Nigeria that allowed the use of the hijab in public schools in Lagos. Government mandates should ultimately be left to schools. What is the problem of public order in this situation? Girls have worn it only on some basis. And the Karnataka High Court Government’s order is not only a violation of freedom of religion, right to education, but also violation of Article 15,

which is discrimination. How can students be asked to choose the right to wear the hijab or continue their education? Not allowing girls to wear hijab means depriving them of their basic right to education. Let us inform that a bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia is hearing the matter.

Sondhi – Not allowing a girl student to enter a class just because she wears a hijab is also a violation of Article 15 (State shall not discriminate against anyone on the basis of caste, sex, religion). Sondhi quotes Dr. Ambedkar – which says that an unemployed person may be forced to choose a job with fewer jobs and rights. The unemployed are forced to give up basic rights.

Also Read: Neeraj Chopra dominates in Switzerland, spear buried in snow, photo goes viral

Advocate Aditya Sondhi said – The matter was related to women’s rights in the Standing Commission of India. In that context, the Court held that what appears to be spontaneous and neutral may indirectly have a discriminatory effect on a group and, if so, will be opposed by the Court.

, I have friends from law college who have never worn hijab. This is ultimately a matter of personal preference, but here we are dealing with students who may be the first students in the family. We have to keep in mind the socio-economic context.

Related Posts


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.