Supreme Court Rejects Plea: The Supreme Court today refused to urgently hear a PIL directing the Center and the states to implement a uniform dress code for employees and students in registered educational institutions to achieve equality and promote fraternity and national integration has been demanded to be given.
Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, before a bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana, urged that their PIL also be listed for hearing like the batch of appeals filed against the Karnataka High Court verdict on the hijab controversy.
On Wednesday, the Bench, which also included Justices Krishna Murari and Hema Kohli, took note of the arguments of advocate Prashant Bhushan and agreed to list next week the petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court’s decision, including in educational institutions. There was a refusal to lift the ban on the hijab. State.
In the beginning, Mr. Upadhyay said that it is a matter related to the general dress code.
“We have told you many times. Don’t force me to repeat. Every day you file a PIL. How many cases have you filed? As if there is no regular litigation. I don’t know, in every case you come and mention. It will come at an appropriate time. Wait…,” the bench said.
“Your lordship agreed to hear the hijab case yesterday… I had filed this PIL in February,” Upadhyay said.
Earlier in February, Nikhil Upadhyay, through lawyers Ashwini Upadhyay and Ashwini Dubey, had filed a PIL in the apex court seeking uniform dress code in educational institutions in the wake of the hijab controversy.
The plea has also sought a direction to the Center to constitute a judicial commission or an expert panel to “inculcate the values of social and economic justice, socialism, secularism and democracy and to inculcate the values of fraternity, unity and national integration among students”. Suggest steps to be taken to promote.
“Alternatively, being the custodian of the Constitution and the defender of fundamental rights, the Law Commission of India shall, within three months, prepare a report suggesting measures to secure social equality and promote the dignity of fraternity, unity and national integration instruct to do so.”
Apart from the Centre, states and union territories, the PIL has made the Law Commission a party and directed the respondent authorities to “strictly enforce a uniform dress code for staff and students in all registered and recognized educational institutions”. To promote equality of status and social equality and the dignity of brotherhood, national unity”.
It referred to some protests in the national capital on February 10 against the ban on hijab in Karnataka.
“Educational institutions are secular public places and knowledge and wisdom are meant to contribute to employment, good health and nation building, and not to follow essential and non-essential religious practices,” the PIL said.
It said, “To maintain the secular character of educational institutions, it is very important to implement uniform dress code in all schools-colleges, otherwise tomorrow Naga Sadhus may take admission in colleges citing essential religious practice and without you can join a clothing class.”
The plea said that uniform dress code is necessary not only to maintain uniformity but also to create a sense of harmony among students of different caste, creed, faith, religion, culture and place.
It cited dress codes in countries such as the US, UK, France, Singapore and China and said, “According to a survey, around 2,50,000 guns were brought into schools and colleges in 2018. Hence, having a uniform dress code. It requires uncovering a student’s beltline that undermines the fear of a hidden weapon.” The hijab controversy began in late December when some hijab-wearing girl students were denied entry to a government pre-university college in Udupi, Karnataka. As a counter, some Hindu students came out wearing saffron scarves. Supreme Court Rejects Plea