Freedom of attire: What if a Naga Sadhu joins school as a student!

Indeed, in all seriousness this is my poser to the advocates of 'freedom of attire' who, of late, have been burning the midnight's oil to convince us that hijab is a religious practice of Muslim girls/women and therefore, they have a right to attend schools wearing the same. Thus, not only Mullahs and Maulvis, but also seasoned politicians like AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi with all his education as a barrister and experience as a parliamentarian believe that asking the Muslim girl students to adhere to the school uniform which prohibits wearing of hijab is unconstitutional.

Now, the matter has reached the Karnataka High Court and the Apex court is just a step ahead. True, the political observers pooh-pooh the whole issue as an 'election stunt'. Considering the fact that the Assembly election campaign has been in full swing and both the respective ruling parties and opposition have high stakes on their results, no stone is left unturned to ensure polarisation of votes of different religions and castes. However, it would be equally dangerous to treat the issue lightly.

The judicial history is replete with an 'n' number of litigations in the name of religion, freedom and what not. The courts have quite assiduously tried to maintain the balance and tranquilised the agitating minds. So the Hijab issue has not come as a surprise. In fact, taking advantage of our 'flexible' Constitution, all sorts of busy bees have consumed their energy to ensure that ambers of dissent are kept burning. In doing so, they often forget that they are only helping the die-hard nationalists to hasten the process of making Bharat, a Hindu Rashtra.

This is evident from the fact that since 2014, after the change of baton at the Centre, hardly a day passes without some protest, agitation or launching of litigation which directly or indirectly pricks, insults or annoys the Hindu psyche. And finally, when the Constitution gets amended keeping in tune to the democratic spirit of honouring the majority wish, the same elements such as Owaisi who sing the tunes of democracy and Constitution would come out in street and indulge in chest-beating and crying aloud against such valid changes in the Constitution.

The current debate on hijab too, is just one such arsenal to polarise Muslim votes. Obviously, in the name of religious practices no one can be allowed to behave in public in the manner he or she likes. The schools are in particular a place where the youngsters are taught lessons of tolerance, co-existence, harmony, unity and friendship. Still if some people are so much concerned about their so-called religious practices, they have been granted permission by the Constitution to establish their own educational institutions.

Further, there has been some sort of distinction between the 'essential' religious practices and 'non-essential' religious practices. For example, while keeping a Kirpan is an essential religious practice of Sikhism, eating vegetarian or non-vegetarian food alone, cannot be termed as a practice of Sikhism. At best, the latter may be called as a non-essential religious practice. Therefore, Sikhs are permitted to move with a Kirpan in public while there are no restrictions on their food habits.

To stretch the religious practices too long is not going to help either the followers of a particular religion or the society at large. Imagine a situation where a Digambar Jain monk, who by his religious practice, does not wear any thing on his body or a Naga Sadhu who too, follows the religious practice of moving naked, joins a school or college and insists on enjoying his 'freedom' of what to wear and what not to wear. Will the concerned authorities 'bow' to his wishes and give admission or just show him the gate?

Rest be assured, the hijab issue too, like other 'low density-sound crackers' would vanish in thin air as soon as the Assembly elections are over.

FIR devoid of factual material quashed

In a judgment having far-reaching consequences, the Supreme Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) finding that if the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue, it would be nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law.

A division bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S Oka, in its verdict dated February 10 in a case titled Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati vs State of Uttar Pradesh said: "Although, it is true that it was not open for the court to embark upon any inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR, but at least there has to be some factual supporting material for what has been alleged in the FIR which is completely missing in the present case…"

The instant Judgment comes as a great relief to thousands of innocent people who are deliberately hauled up as accused falsely just for the sake of causing mental and physical harassment.

Cheque issued as 'security', no offence under NI act

Justice Gita Gopi of the Gujarat High Court placing reliance on the Apex court's judgment in Lalit Kumar Sharma vs The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (5) SCC 638 held that a cheque issued as 'security' does not attract an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act since that Section only relates to 'enforceable debt.'

Terming the proceedings under NI Act as gross miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of court, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in CM Smith and Sons vs The State of Gujarat.