Dismissal of Muslim student for sporting beard stayed

[Skeptic]

Dismissal of Muslim student for sporting beard stayed

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday permitted a Muslim student, who was sacked by a school in Madhya Pradesh for sporting a beard, to continue his studies in the same institution.

A Bench consisting of Justices B.N. Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi stayed the dismissal order passed by the Nirmala Convent Higher Secondary School, a government-recognised minority institution, on an appeal by the student, Mohammad Salim.

Earlier, on March 30, a Bench headed by Justice Markandey Katju rejected the student’s petition orally observing that secularism could not be overstretched and that “Talibanisation” of the country could not be permitted. Salim sought review of the plea stating the observations on “Talibanisation” caused incalculable damage to the country’s image and the judiciary, besides, hurting Muslim sentiments.


Review order



Salim said the order “needs to be reviewed afresh as the core issue of a Muslim’s right to sport a beard as guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution [right to practise and profess one’s religion] was violated by the school.”

On July 6, Justices R.V. Raveendran and Katju withdrew the March 30 order and directed that the matter be placed before Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan for posting it before another Bench. Accordingly, the appeal was heard by Justices Agrawal and Singhvi.

Justice Singhvi asked senior counsel B.A. Khan, appearing for the petitioner, whether the student was dismissed solely for sporting a beard. When counsel said “yes,” Justice Singhvi said: “In that case, tomorrow they may say that no Sikh student can be admitted. Nowadays it has become fashionable for boys to sport earrings. Will it not be allowed? It is ridiculous.”

Justice Agrawal said, “They may refuse admission on the colour of the skin also.”

Counsel said the boy had already lost one year.

Salim sought quashing of the school regulation requiring students to be clean shaven. Challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court verdict which earlier dismissed his plea, he said every citizen was entitled to follow his religious principles.

Salim said sporting a beard was an indispensable part of Islam.

 

[shravan]

Salim said sporting a beard was an indispensable part of Islam.

Is he saying the truth ?

 

[Khajur]

Dismissal of Muslim student for sporting beard stayed

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday permitted a Muslim student, who was sacked by a school in Madhya Pradesh for sporting a beard, to continue his studies in the same institution.

A Bench consisting of Justices B.N. Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi stayed the dismissal order passed by the Nirmala Convent Higher Secondary School, a government-recognised minority institution, on an appeal by the student, Mohammad Salim.

Earlier, on March 30, a Bench headed by Justice Markandey Katju rejected the student’s petition orally observing that secularism could not be overstretched and that “Talibanisation” of the country could not be permitted. Salim sought review of the plea stating the observations on “Talibanisation” caused incalculable damage to the country’s image and the judiciary, besides, hurting Muslim sentiments.


Review order



Salim said the order “needs to be reviewed afresh as the core issue of a Muslim’s right to sport a beard as guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution [right to practise and profess one’s religion] was violated by the school.”

On July 6, Justices R.V. Raveendran and Katju withdrew the March 30 order and directed that the matter be placed before Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan for posting it before another Bench. Accordingly, the appeal was heard by Justices Agrawal and Singhvi.

Justice Singhvi asked senior counsel B.A. Khan, appearing for the petitioner, whether the student was dismissed solely for sporting a beard. When counsel said “yes,” Justice Singhvi said: “In that case, tomorrow they may say that no Sikh student can be admitted. Nowadays it has become fashionable for boys to sport earrings. Will it not be allowed? It is ridiculous.”

Justice Agrawal said, “They may refuse admission on the colour of the skin also.”

Counsel said the boy had already lost one year.

Salim sought quashing of the school regulation requiring students to be clean shaven. Challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court verdict which earlier dismissed his plea, he said every citizen was entitled to follow his religious principles.

Salim said sporting a beard was an indispensable part of Islam.

If Article 25 of the Constitution is about safegaurding ones religion,then that minority institution Nirmala Convent has equal right to practise and profess its religion too.

Come one,everyone has right to practise and profess their religion ,but schools have their own set regulation which must be respected if u want to continue study there.

Absolutely rubbish judgement, one's freedom religion must not impinge on other freedoms to make their choices.

 

[Skeptic]

If Article 25 of the Constitution is about safegaurding ones religion,then that minority institution Nirmala Convent has equal right to practise and profess its religion too.

But no one is interfering with beard or choti or church of the Convent. If you have ever studied in a convent (I have) they practice and profess pretty naturally. Every saturday we had a 2 hour long sermon to stand through (Invariable a couple of boys would drop due to heat) but they would continue. Every morning we had to recite Oh Lord Thou art in heaven along with atleast one more Christian song.

Come one,everyone has right to practice and profess their religion ,but schools have their own set regulation which must be respected if u want to continue study there.

Yes but if the rules can be changed for Sikhs why not for Muslims as well? If Sikhs are allowed headgear and sport a beard, why not the Muslim?

Absolutely rubbish judgement, one's freedom religion must not impinge on other freedoms to make their choices.

That might be your opinion, but the logic mentioned by you is flawed. Infact, the logic mentioned goes absolutely against your case. The student also has a right to maintain beard, who are we / supreme court to judge. This was in many ways similar to Burqa Ban in france, and I find that rediculous too.

We are aspiring to be an open society, and you stay open by accepting people as they are, not by banning things you think are inappropriate.

If sport a beard was indiscipline, then all the schools / colleges in Punjab would be the worst affected, but that my dear is not the case. I am not in favour of students being overtly religions and having beard, but if someone does, he should be allowed.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will die fighting for your right to say it
remember...

 

[toxic_pus]

Counsel said the boy had already lost one year.

Was it worth it.

 

[MilesTogo]

Was it worth it.

Yes, if he wants to follow Zakir Naik's career path.

 

[Khajur]

But no one is interfering with beard or choti or church of the Convent. If you have ever studied in a convent (I have) they practice and profess pretty naturally. Every saturday we had a 2 hour long sermon to stand through (Invariable a couple of boys would drop due to heat) but they would continue. Every morning we had to recite Oh Lord Thou art in heaven along with atleast one more Christian song.

As a minority institution of learnings be it a convent or madrassas has constititutnal provisions which allows to impart religious education.Convents were originally establsihed from the days of British Raj to impart western education to European children of like their sister convents did in Europe or else where. Its a differeent matter that convent were historically considered good for english education and people of other religion also stated sending their kids to study there.

Similarly madrassas also primarily provide islamic education along with other subjects .Kids of other religion do go
madrassas,but very slim in numbers.If we had continued to be under mughul rule then certainly we would have seen much greater number of madrassas of educated students of all religions.

The point is, these convents or madrassas are not secular government institutions.They are infact defacto religious institution to protect and promote their respective religion along provide with modern day education.They have centain privileges and rules u got to respect if u want to study there.If tomorrow a christian boy chooses to wear a cross to his madrassas or a hindu boy want to pray sanskrit slokas,madrassas authority would vehemently protest.

Yes but if the rules can be changed for Sikhs why not for Muslims as well? If Sikhs are allowed headgear and sport a beard, why not the Muslim?

Dont compare this case with Sikhs sporting beard since unlike Islam its an indispensable part of Sikhsim.Growing beard is more of an strict interpretation of Islam.We have so many cases of prominent muslims from historical figures like Emperor Akbar to MD Jinnha, Gen Ayub khan of pakistan to current day bollywood khans who are all clean shaven.Nobody should claim that in accordance to islam growing beard is a must for a good muslim which isnt a fact.

The student also has a right to maintain beard, who are we / supreme court to judge. This was in many ways similar to Burqa Ban in france, and I find that rediculous too.

The fact remains neither Burqa nor growing beard isnt an absolute must for a muslim as we see so many good muslims dont consider them as necessary part of islam and going without them.

We are aspiring to be an open society, and you stay open by accepting people as they are, not by banning things you think are inappropriate.

As i indicated before, wearing Burqa or growing beard is all about mere personal choices not any strict adherance to islam.Yes, we are very open society not just aspiring one,but we must be careful that actions shouldnt hurt sentiments or break rules & regulation laid down by the institutions we want to be remain part of and be beneficial to it.

In an uniform driven institution be it the army or a high school,we must respect to the rules laid down for the smooth functioning of those institutions.

Would encourage an muslim army women or tennis player to wear Burqa on job or in the court just because she believes its in her religion??
Do think army of any country or WTF of tennis world allow such deviance regulations in the name of free choice or open society??

If sport a beard was indiscipline, then all the schools / colleges in Punjab would be the worst affected

sporting a beard and wearing a turban is accepted world over as inherent parts of Sikhism even in france as thats what make someone a sikh .So lets not bring in sikhs in to it.

since u pointed about sikhs,let me tell u there is arnamental custom in khalsa culture to carry Kirpan.That doesnt mean if any sikh would insist on carrying kirpans as part of sikh religion or in the name open society , authorities would allow him to do so as it would certainly in some places going to create an security issue.

Thats why i said all this talk about freedom to practice owns religion or to create an more open society is only good as long as that dont break the rules & regulations of the very institution we want to be part of and gain out of it.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will die fighting for your right to say it
remember...

Afterall,in this case there is no breach of any of his fundamental rights.And what about fighting right of that convent institute to uphold sanctity of that place ??

 

[Skeptic]

As a minority institution of learnings be it a convent or madrassas has constititutnal provisions which allows to impart religious education.Convents were originally establsihed from the days of British Raj to impart western education to European children of like their sister convents did in Europe or else where. Its a differeent matter that convent were historically considered good for english education and people of other religion also stated sending their kids to study there.

Absolutely wrong:

Thus the twin objects sought to be achieved by Article 30(1) in the interest of minorities are: (i) to enable such to conserve its religion and language, and (ii) to give a thorough good general education to the children belonging to such minority. So long as the institution retains its minority character by achieving and continuing to achieve the aforesaid two objectives, the institution would remain a minority institution.”

additionally:

It has been held by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme
Court in St. Xavier’s College, Ahmedabad vs. State of Gujarat 1974
(1) SCC 717 that “affiliation must be a real and meaningful exercise of
right for minority institutions in the matter of imparting general secular
education.

http://ncmei.gov.in/writereaddata/filelinks/c296efcb_Guidelines.pdf
Operating word is conserve not Propagate. Unless you prove that beard was a threat to Christianity - I think you lose on this argument.
Read this. I'll quote the relevant part:

These are the opening lines:

Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India gives linguistic and
religious minorities a fundamental right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice. These rights are protected by a
prohibition against their violation. The prohibition is contained in
Article 13 of the Constitution which declares that any law in breach of
the fundamental rights would be void to the extent of such violation.
It is well-settled that Article 30(1) can not be read in a narrow and
pedantic sense and being a fundamental right, it should be given its
widest amplitude.

Defenition:

“Minority Educational Institution” means a college
or institution (other than a University) established or
maintained by a person or group of persons from
amongst the minorities”

In St. Stephen’s College vs. University of Delhi (1992) SCC 558,
the Supreme Court has declared the St. Stephen’s College as a minority
educational institution on the ground that it was established and
administered by members of the Christian Community.

And how many people should I quote from St. Stephen's who do do their Namaz and pooja at Stephen's????

As i indicated before, wearing Burqa or growing beard is all about mere personal choices not any strict adherance to islam.

Are you going to decide that?? Who gives you the right to decide that what is mandatory in one religion and what is not in anoother?? You know much more than Supreme Court of India it seems??? Do you know what is sunnat?? It means that if Muslims emulate what their phophet did, they will receive Jannat - So do you want to deny that guy his right to practice his religion the best he can??

prominent muslims from historical figures like Emperor Akbar to MD Jinnha, Gen Ayub khan of pakistan to current day bollywood khans who are all clean shaven.Nobody should claim that in accordance to islam growing beard is a must for a good muslim which isnt a fact.

So do we have a huge group of Sikhs who cut their hair. Infact it was quoted as a concern in Chandigarh. Yeah and you never heard the term "Mona Sardar"??

The fact remains neither Burqa nor growing beard isnt an absolute must for a muslim as we see so many good muslims dont consider them as necessary part of islam and going without them.

And and again, you seem a little obsessed with becoming a religious preacher??? I'll ask you again - Who gives you a right to decide what should / should not be done. among hindus also there are so many festivals celebrated in north not in south?? So which one is compulsory and mandatory??

Yes, we are very open society not just aspiring one,but we must be careful that actions shouldnt hurt sentiments or break rules & regulation laid down by the institutions we want to be remain part of and be beneficial to it.

We still are an aspiring open society. The world is not limited to metros... Till the openness reaches the far corner where more than 60% population lives, we'll stay an aspiring open society.
Minority institutions were given a special right so they could work for betterment of minority. No-one is given a free licence to convert others. And this looks like a attempted conversion under duress.

In an uniform driven institution be it the army or a high school,we must respect to the rules laid down for the smooth functioning of those institutions.

Yeah nice analogy, army and high school???
International Tennis player and a class 10 student??
I will ask you again:

If sport a beard was indiscipline, then all the schools / colleges in Punjab would be the worst affected

So lets not bring in sikhs in to it

As you say...

let me tell u there is arnamental custom in khalsa culture to carry Kirpan.That doesnt mean if any sikh would insist on carrying kirpans as part of sikh religion or in the name open society , authorities would allow him to do so as it would certainly in some places going to create an security issue.

But you did...

How does carrying a Kirpan / any other weapon equate to beard?? And how would Sikhs feel if a judgment read to them stated that Keeping a Kirpan makes them a Khalistani Terrorist?? Damn Offencive I am sure.

Thats why i said all this talk about freedom to practice owns religion or to create an more open society is only good as long as that dont break the rules & regulations of the very institution we want to be part of and gain out of it.

In my school we had a rule that girls were not to wear any make-up and most did wear Nail Polish, lip gloss etc. Neither did it interfere with our studies and never was any student expelled for it. And yes - these are comparable as they are both cosmetic. And speaking strictly of beard - Many guys never shaved during Navratri and were never forced to.

Afterall,in this case there is no breach of any of his fundamental rights.And what about fighting right of that convent institute to uphold sanctity of that place ??

arre leave alone islam, what if a student of that school says that I am following a brand new faith named skepticism and it has only one line religious literature stating you must have beard - So What now??? Everyone is free to practice their religion the way he/she wants to. If you will tell anyone how to practice their religion - you are taking away a very fundamental right.

I would have supported you if beard was anti Christian, alas its not.

 

[Skeptic]

Was it worth it.

In my opinion - it was not. In his and his family's it was.
Why should we judge him on what his priorities are??
As I said:

I may not agree with what you say, but I will die fighting for your right to say it
remember...

 

[toxic_pus]

In my opinion - it was not. In his and his family's it was.

So the kid paid the price for his parents sense of self-righteousness. Nice example to set, I must say.

Why should we judge him on what his priorities are??

So you mean to say that if a kid starts smoking pot and bunking school we should let it happen because after all, who are we 'to judge him on what his priorities are'.

Sorry, can't pretend to be a saint.

 

[toxic_pus]

I may not agree with what you say, but I will die fighting for your right to say it remember...

You are not using it right, which makes me wonder if you understand what it means.

 

[Abasin Turi]

Is he saying the truth ?

not neccessarily...
beard is in islam not islam in beard...
it your own choice whether you want to have it or not... its not a compulsion...

 

[toxic_pus]

not neccessarily...
beard is in islam not islam in beard...
it your own choice whether you want to have it or not... its not a compulsion...

There Skeptic, you have your reply.

 

[Skeptic]

So the kid paid the price for his parents sense of self-righteousness. Nice example to set, I must say.

No Sir, It is about their belief and perspective. If you ask me personally I find entire concept of god, Heaven and hell pathetic. But what I do know is the mindset of people who faith in this. Do you think a believer would accept that he might rot in hell for eternity or he could not attain nirvana because he backed from performing his religious duties? In his mind its 1 year Vs Eternity.

So you mean to say that if a kid starts smoking pot and bunking school we should let it happen because after all, who are we 'to judge him on what his priorities are'.

Why do we have to resort to such extreme examples? give a proper analogy. Yes if he wants longer hair or an ear piercing or even a tatoo I won't mind at all. Its a personal choice.

You are not using it right, which makes me wonder if you understand what it means.

I do.

not neccessarily...
beard is in islam not islam in beard...
it your own choice whether you want to have it or not... its not a compulsion..

There Skeptic, you have your reply.

Ask the same question to 1000 guys atleast 300 will say it is 700 will say its not. It is how you interpret it.

 

[FireFighter]

In my opinion - it was not. In his and his family's it was.
Why should we judge him on what his priorities are??
As I said:

Thank you for bringing some sense into this thread Skeptic. Your comment assures me that some sane heads exit across the border.

Earlier, on March 30, a Bench headed by Justice Markandey Katju rejected the student’s petition orally observing that secularism could not be overstretched and that “Talibanisation” of the country could not be permitted. Salim sought review of the plea stating the observations on “Talibanisation” caused incalculable damage to the country’s image and the judiciary, besides, hurting Muslim sentiments.

Look! how obnoxiously invalid that decision was made against the Muslim student by Justice Markandey Katju. Good thing is that it was reviewed and his bigoted decision was dropped.

Unfortunately anti-Islam Justice Markandey's presence in the Judiciary is a stark reminder that anti-Muslim islamophobia is still present at such high institution which is meant to protect the rights of Indian citizens regardless of race, religion, etc.

Things like these keep reminding us how we're better off in Pakistan.