Courts should not ‘interfere’ with Islam’s internal affairs; Muslim cleric

A Muslim preacher asserted that hijab is an internal affair of Islam and that no one should in any way interfere with it after the Supreme Court issued a divided decision after hearing a number of petitions contesting the Karnataka government’s decree banning it in pre-university college classrooms. Even courts shouldn’t intervene with Islam’s internal issues, according to Maulana Mirza Shafiq Hussain Shafaq. ‘The judiciary shouldn’t become involved in these issues. Are we supposed to pray more or less if we offer namaaz four times a day?’  Asserted Shafaq.

The Muslim cleric’s comments followed a ruling by the Supreme Court in which Justice Gupta upheld the Karnataka government’s order while Justice Dhulia accepted all appeals and overturned the Karnataka High Court’s decision in the case. Justice Dhulia said that he had overturned the state government’s decision to forbid hijab wearing and had ordered the limitations to be lifted, saying, ‘It (wearing of the hijab) is a matter of choice, nothing more and nothing less’.

Justice Hemant Gupta noted that it is necessary to talk about the reach and boundaries of the right to freedom of religion. In addition, he suggested rejecting the appeal and maintaining the prohibition on the hijab in educational settings. Due to the split decision, the state government’s directive from February 5 restricting the hijab in schools will still be in effect for the time being. The Chief Justice of India (CJI), UU Lalit, has now been given the case and will assemble a fresh bench to hear it. The new SC bench will contain three or more judges, according on the CJI’s discretion.

After a lengthy hearing that lasted ten days, the SC bench issued the decision. On September 22, the order was set aside for today. The Karnataka High Court had ruled that the ban on wearing the hijab in schools was a legitimate limitation, arguing that it was not a fundamental religious practise in Islam. The highest court then heard arguments from the attorneys for the petitioners, instructors, and the state government after being petitioned by a number of pupils.