In a welcome development, Honorable Justice Markandeya Katju has apologised for his controversial comments on sporting beards and ‘burqa’ and equating the Muslim practice with “Talibanisation” and withdrew his earlier judgment against sporting beard in colleges.
Justice Katju made the remark on March 30, 2009, while dismissing a petition filed by a student of a convent school in Vidiha, (M.P.); against his removal from the School on the ground that he has violated the dress code of the school by refusing to shave his beard.
Justice Katju, while dismissing his appeal summarily, remarked: “The concept of secularism should not be stretched beyond certain limits and Talibanisation cannot be allowed to spread in the country.” He further observed, “We do not want Talibanies to flourish in this country. Some day, a girl student might approach us with a demand to allow her to attend schools with burqa on. Can we permit such requests?” His comment came under severe criticism and stirred sharp controversy.
On July 6, while hearing a review petition against earlier judgment, the same bench of Supreme Court, comprising Hon. Justice Markandeya Katju and Justice R.V. Raveendran said in a written order: “During the hearing, certain observations were made by one of us (Justice Markandeya Katju). His intentions were not to offend anyone. However, if anyone’s feeling has been hurt, he apologises and expresses regret in the matter.”
To my knowledge, it is the first occasion that a Judge has graciously apologised for his comment from the minority community. This has raised the dignity of judiciary and Hon. Justice Katju. We openheartedly welcome it. It is a pleasant end of a bitter controversy and heart burning. It is noteworthy that the remark against beard was oral and off the record, while the apology has come in his written order.
The bench while accepting the review petition for hearing transferred the appeal to another bench. The order said: “The review petition expresses apprehension that one of the judges was biased against the petitioner. We are of the view that the matter should be heard by another bench. We therefore, withdraw the order of March 30, 2009.”
Nirmala Convent High School, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh, had struck down the name of Mohd Saleem, a 10th class student, from the rolls after he refused to shave his beard on the ground that it was mandatory in Islam. Saleem challenged his removal in the State High Court which upheld the school’s decision after which he appealed to the Apex Court.
However, during the hearing on March 30, Justice Katju had told the petitioner and the advocate Justice Basheer Ahmad Khan (Retd), who appeared for the student, that Muslims have no fundamental right or religious duty to sport a beard.
The matter has become more interesting as recently (on July 1, 2009) the Madras High Court maintained in a similar case that ‘the college cannot insist its students to wear a particular dress.’ The order came on a petition filed by V Kamalaman, an internee of the Venkateshwara Homeopathic Medical College, Chennai, aggrieved by the order of the college prohibiting its students to wear Shalwar Kameez and wear only saree in the college.
In a similar case, four Girls Colleges of Kanpur (U.P.) had to withdraw their advisory to students not to wear Jeans and Tops in the Classes. The students, calling it a ‘Talibani’ order, aggressively protested and Mayavati Government, apprehending spread of unrest, ordered all colleges not to apply restrictions on girls against their sexy westernised dress.
The college management of Vidisha Convent College took refuge under Article 30 of Indian Constitution, which entitles minorities to establish and manage their own schools. The plea of the management is that to decide a dress code is a part ‘of right to manage the school’ and the dress code of the college prohibits its students to sport a beard. Mohd. Saleem contested this plea on the ground that Article 25 is more sacred, as it gives freedom of conscience and freedom to profess, practise and propagate any religion subject of course to public order, morality and health. He pleaded that to sport a beard is a part of his religion.
Now it is hoped that the Supreme Court will deal with the question if a Minority School Management has right to usurp the fundamental right of student (under Section 25) to practise his religion on the plea that it has right to determine a dress code under the right conferred upon Minority Educational Institution under Section 30, and that it can determine a code inconsistent to the belief of a student.
[The writer is a senior Urdu Journalist, and Gen. Sec. Forum for Civil Rights. He can be reached at [email protected]]