Today I appeared with Adv. Subhash Jha before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Hijab Ban Case, we argued on the basis of Judgments given by the courts with respect to Hijab and also pointed out that Hijab is not an essential part of Islam.
We presented a judgment where the case was filed by a lawyer for wearing dhoti-kurta by advocates in court room. He argued that not permitting of dhoti-kurta was against national culture. Allahabad HC rejected.
AIR 1974 All 133 – Prayag Das vs Civil Judge, Bulandshahr And Ors.
We gave another judgement in the case of Dr. Vincent Panikulangara v. Union Of India “In the second place,a uniform prescribed dress worn by the members of the Bar induces a seriousness of purpose and a sense of decorum which are highly conducive to the dispensation of justice..”
We mentioned another judgement In Fathema Hussain Syed Vs Bharat Education Society (2002) where the Bombay high court turned down a girl student’s plea for wearing a head scarf in a private school in violation of the dress code.
Mr. Jha added, “An agitation of this magnitude cannot be orchestrated overnight. This cannot be turn out of blue. There are photographs showing the girls were not wearing hijab earlier. Suddenly petitions are filed one after another, senior lawyers across the country are engaged”
Mr. Jha further told that “Attendant circumstances indicate that there is more to it than meets the eye. Prima facie credible information is only necessary to set criminal law into motion. Court may call for a report from Union of India.”.
Mr. Jha informed the court that One young boy #Harsha was killed some radical organization is behind the murder.
We were the first who raised the voice for Harsha before the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
We gave another landmark judgement of Malaysian Federal court in MEOR ATIQULRAHMAN ISHAK & ORS v. FATIMAH SIHI & ORS FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
where the court held wearing of turban by a Muslim boy was not essential part.