Aishat Shifa versus the State of Karnataka
While listening to petitions opposing the Karnataka High Court’s ban on wearing the hijab at educational institutions, Justice Hemant Gupta said aloud that Sikhism’s religious traditions are “deeply engrained in the Indian culture.” He scorned the comparisons between the Christian cross, Hindu tikas, and Sikhs’ turbans and kirpans. Justice Gupta said that comparing people to Sikhs might not be appropriate. He asserted that the Constitution recognises the right to carry a kirpan. He also dismissed a different debate on the turban worn by Sikhs by arguing that Pagadi is not a religion and that there is no need to compare it to one.
Can pupils come in minis, midis, or whatever they want? was a petitioner’s question that received harsh criticism from the Supreme Court earlier.
When Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde made the observation that Chunni was permitted, a headscarf or hijab was already a part of the uniform.
Justice Gupta responded that a chunni and a hijab cannot be equated. Instead of the head, chunni is worn on the shoulders. According to him, Punjabis don’t cover their heads when around elders.
The petitioners don’t appear to be making progress in the hearing, which is still ongoing. While a portion of the country cherry picks and attempts to inflame the very pluralistic fabric of the country, it appears that the doors are closed, drawing fallacies that justify peculiarities in the constitution. Students who had long worn the hijab to schools and colleges were denied the right to an education. The doors suddenly slammed shut in their faces. Alas! Here, we are debating the subtleties of clothing choices based on prejudice, society, and religion. In this instance, the verdict has already been reached. prejudice that isn’t (whatever you wanna call it).