Supreme Court has put interim stay on the decision of the college in the matter of wearing hijab, niqab, burqa, stole and cap in Mumbai’s private Chembur College. Along with this, the date of next hearing on this matter was also given. In the petition, the Bombay High Court’s decision to maintain the ban on hijab and burqa in the college yesterday has been challenged. The petitioner had demanded an early hearing on the petition from the Chief Justice, due to which it was heard today.
The college had imposed a ban
Private colleges of Mumbai had banned wearing hijab, niqab, burqa, stole and cap. Mumbai’s NG Acharya and DK Marathe College have banned wearing hijab, niqab, burqa, stole and cap in the campus. A hearing was held against this in the Supreme Court today. The case was heard by a bench of Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.
The court raised questions on the circular
SC raised questions on the circular and said that how are you empowering girls by banning their clothing. What the girls want to wear should be left to them. It is unfortunate that after so many years of independence, such a ban is being talked about.
After this, SC banned a part of the circular, according to which the girl students were banned from wearing hijab, burqa stole and cap etc. The court issued a notice on the petition filed by some girl students. The court said that our order should not be misused. After this, the bench said that this matter will be heard in the week starting from November 18.
College administration said this
In this case, the college administration said that 441 Muslim girls study in the college, why only 3 girls had a problem. Along with this, the Supreme Court also expressed displeasure over the girls giving statements in the media first. Let us tell you that earlier 9 girls had approached the Bombay High Court against this ban, but the High Court rejected their plea. In the case, the Bombay High Court had held that the dress code issued by the college is in the wider educational interest and there is no deficiency in it, which violates the provisions of Article 19(1)(A) and Article 25 of the Constitution.
