Karnataka Hijab Row: Opinions of both the Supreme Court judges differ, case sent to CJI

National Desk:
Supreme Court decision on Hijab Ban: A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday gave its verdict on the Hijab controversy of Karnataka and the opinion of the two judges on this matter is different.  After this the matter has been referred to Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and he has been requested to hear in a larger bench.  After the decision of the two judges of the Supreme Court, the decision of the Karnataka High Court on the Karnataka hijab ban will remain intact and the ban on the hijab will also continue till further orders.
    In the court, Justice Hemant Gupta first read his decision and said that he is dismissing the petition against the decision of the Karnataka High Court.  At the same time, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia has a different opinion and he quashed the decision of the Karnataka High Court.  Along with this, he also rejected the government order, in which the wearing of hijab in educational institutions was banned.  Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia said that in his judgment, he mainly emphasized the concept of compulsory religious practice, which is not the core of the controversy.  He said that the Karnataka High Court took the wrong path and wearing the hijab is ultimately a matter of choice, nothing more or less than that.
    The hijab controversy in Karnataka began in early January this year at a government college in Udupi, where Muslim girls were barred from wearing hijab.  The school management had called it against the Uniform Code.  After this the controversy spread to other cities of Karnataka as well.  The matter reached the court and the Karnataka High Court had dismissed the petition on behalf of the girl students demanding to wear hijab in class.  In the judgment on March 15, it was argued in the High Court that wearing the hijab is not a part of the essential practice of Islam.  Therefore, the order of the state to follow the uniform in the school-college is correct.  Even after that decision, the dispute did not stop and the matter reached the Supreme Court.