Protection under Articles 25 & 26 Implies to Essential Practices: AG

Story Highlights
  • AG argues that the petitioner could get protection under Articles 25 & 26 if the practice was essential and not an integral part.
  • AG cites judgement given by Ismail Faruqi.
  • The Karnataka HC is hearing the matter for the 8th day in a row.

Bengaluru: Karnataka HC today began hearing the petitions filed by the students over Hijab permissions on campus. The Adv General representing the state argued that the right to wear Hijab under Article 19 right can be restricted under Article 19 (2).

He argued that the practice may be religious but is not essential. The above statement was cited based on an Ismail Faruqi Judgement which held that a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion and Namaz could be prayed anywhere. He further quoted from the Ismail Faruqui judgment that “The protection under Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution is to religious practise which forms an essential and integral part of the religion. A practice may be a religious practise but not an essential & integral part of the practice of that religion”.

The court a week later saw arguments, where the AG claimed students were allowed, to wear Hijab on campus but not in classrooms. Meanwhile, prohibitory orders are in place in Shivamogga where a BJD Activist was murdered on Sunday night. All educational institutions around Bengaluru have been ordered to shut down until March 8th.

Related Articles

Back to top button