Connect with us

World News

Indian court upholds hijab ban, rules wearing hijab is not an essential practice of Islam – JURIST

Published

on

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a batch of petitions challenging a ban on hijabs (Islamic headscarves) in the uniform of junior colleges in Karnataka’s Udupi district. The court held that wearing a hijab is not an essential religious practice of Islam and is not a religious right protected by the Indian Constitution. Controversy erupted in early January when universities denied entry to a group of Muslim female students wearing the hijab. failure to adhere to the uniform dress code. The state government issued an order last month validating the decision of educational institutions to ban female students wearing hijabs from entering university facilities. As protests spread across the state, the Karnataka High Court issued an interim order temporarily restricting all students in the state, “regardless of their religion or faith,” from wearing Bhagwa (saffron-colored shawls), scarves , hijab, religious flags or the like in classrooms until a judgment is issued on the merits. In Tuesday’s decision, the court outlined three questions to consider: whether wearing the hijab is an essential religious practice in the Islamic faith protected by article 25 of the constitution; if the prescription of the school uniform violates the right to religion; and if the February government order violates the right to equality under articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution? The court referred to various surahs of the Qur’an and noted that there is no reference to a screen or hijab for women in the Qur’an; rather, “only a veil to cover the breast, and modesty in dress” have been mentioned. He further noted that wearing the hijab is only a recommendation and no penalty or penance has been prescribed for not wearing it: There is absolutely no material on record showing prima facie that the wearing of the hijab is part of an essential religious practice in Islam and that the petitioners have been wearing the hijab since the beginning. Based on these observations, the court held that wearing a hijab is not an inviolable religious practice in Islam and prescribing a school uniform is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to religion. Since the government has the power to issue orders requiring uniform dress codes in public institutions, the court also dismissed the third ground of challenge. students nor do they prescribe punishments for students who do not adhere to a particular uniform.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

World News

US Supreme Court Grants Review of Federal Bankruptcy Case – JURIST

Published

on

On Monday, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco, a case examining appellate court jurisdiction over sales orders in federal bankruptcy proceedings. The case revolves around the sale and transfer of a lease for a store in a shopping center. In 1991, Sears obtained a lease for a store in the Mall of America in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The lease only cost Sears $10 a year and was supposed to last 100 years. Sears, however, went bankrupt in 2018. As part of federal bankruptcy proceedings, Sears sold its assets and the Mall of America lease was transferred to Transform Holdco LLC, a corporation formed by Sears’ new owners. Mall of America sought to prevent the transfer because they claim that Transform Holdco LLC does not intend to occupy the leased facilities but to sublet them to other companies. Transform Holdco LLC argues that the long-term lease constitutes a substantial portion of the value Sears was sold for in the bankruptcy proceeding. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit transferred the lease as it was deemed “integral” to a court-approved bankruptcy sale. Mall of America filed a petition with the US Supreme Court, arguing that a remedy is available that would not affect the validity of the sale. Therefore, according to Mall of America, the appellate court should be allowed to intervene. Transform Holdco LLC responds that no such remedy exists, and that the Second Circuit’s ruling should stand. The US Supreme Court must now determine whether federal bankruptcy law limits appeals on sales orders deemed “comprehensive,” even when a remedy is available that will not affect the validity of the sale. The court is set to hear oral arguments in the case next term.

Continue Reading

World News

US appeals court to rehear challenge to Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine executive order – JURIST

Published

on

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order on Monday stating that the court will rehear Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, a challenge to President Joe Biden’s 2019 executive order that required federal employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or face termination. In late May and early June, America First Legal Foundation, America’s Frontline Doctors, Airline Employees For Freedom Health, and an additional group of vaccine plaintiffs filed four amicus briefs in favor of a new full hearing. The plaintiffs in Rodden v. Fauci also filed a class action lawsuit made up of federal employees who contracted COVID-19, developed COVID-19 antibodies, “but remain subject to the federal employee vaccination mandate.” The Rodden plaintiffs argue that Biden and the “agencies he directs have no power to direct the personal medical decisions of federal employees,” and therefore this executive order is like an illegal government mandate. In addition, the group asserts that the panel’s refusal to review executive employment decisions is unlawful and thus protects “the exercise of unlawful governmental power.” In January 2022, a Texas judge blocked Biden’s executive order. Other state judges have also blocked enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. In December 2021, a Georgia judge blocked the COVID-19 vaccination mandate for government contractors after the Texas Governor ordered a statewide ban on all COVID-19 vaccination mandates in October 2021 .

Continue Reading

World News

Ukraine’s richest man sues Russia for loss of property and profits – JURIST

Published

on

Ukraine’s richest man on Monday filed a lawsuit with the European Court of Human Rights against Russia for “serious violations of his property rights during Russia’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine.” Rinat Akhmetov, a Ukrainian businessman who owns much of the country’s manufacturing infrastructure, says he has lost billions of dollars in business since the Russian invasion began. Akhmetov’s announcement highlighted both ongoing human rights violations and infrastructure destruction committed by Russia. He wrote: In addition to the untold human suffering he has caused, Russia’s invasion has resulted in massive destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure. The shelling of the Azovstal steel complex in Mariupol by Russian artillery seeking to eliminate the last vestiges of Ukrainian resistance in that city has become an international symbol of Russia’s disregard for international law and human rights. As the owner of the Azovstal steel complex, Akhmetov has suffered estimated losses of billions of dollars in both property and profits as a direct result of the Russian invasion. This lawsuit is one of the first initiated by a private individual against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. Akhmetov stated several times throughout the announcement that he hopes the court will award him damages so that Ukraine can begin to rebuild.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022