July 18, 2026 06:35 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
NEET protest escalates! CJP demands PM Modi's resignation after Sonam Wangchuk's forceful removal | Chaos at Jantar Mantar! Woman throws ink at CJP chief Abhijeet Dipke; he replies 'Blue is my colour' | A historic new frontier': PM Modi hails India's first private orbital rocket Vikram-1 launch | Mission Aagaman takes off: India's first private orbital rocket Vikram-1 makes history | NEET protest explodes: CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke begins indefinite hunger strike after Sonam Wangchuk's forceful removal | Jantar Mantar Protest: Cops remove Sonam Wangchuk from protest site, admitted to hospital | India's Rail Revolution Begins: First Hydrogen train hits the tracks | Tragedy in Bengal: Two children among three killed as train hits school van | Europe's killer heatwave claims nearly 10,000 lives, UN sounds global alarm | 'Why introduce a new language in Class 9?' Supreme Court questions Centre's policy
Hijab Row

Supreme Court says no to urgent hearing on hijab

| @indiablooms | Mar 24, 2022, at 08:22 pm

New Delhi/UNI: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to give an urgent hearing to a plea by a lawyer challenging the Karnataka High Court move to uphold the ban on the hijab in educational institutions of Karnataka.

Chief Justice N V Ramana did not list the matter urgently.

"We will see it," he said.

Senior lawyer Devdutt Kamat told the Supreme Court that examinations were approaching and so this matter needed to be listed urgently.

The Chief Justice said this had nothing to do with the examinations.

"Don't sensationalise the issue," he said, and refused to give an urgent hearing.

Kamat said that the students will lose one year as they were not being allowed to enter the schools.

But the apex court refused to give an urgent hearing.

The High Court of Karnataka had ruled that the practice of hijab was not an essential practice under Islam and the matter did not fall within the ambit of Article 25 of the Constitution.

The court held that the prescription of school uniform was only a reasonable restriction which is constitutionally permissible which the students cannot object to.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.