Filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri questioned SC judge Sudhanshu Dhulia after the Swiss government passed a new law in the favour of the Burqa Ban. Months after the controversy regarding the ban on hijabs erupted in the state of Karnataka, the Supreme Court bench on Thursday delivered a split verdict in the Karnataka hijab ban case, with a “divergence of opinion” between the two judges.
Having contradictory views on the hijab ban issues, Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the appeals against the high court verdict, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia allowed them. "There is a divergence of opinion," Justice Gupta, who was heading the bench, said at the outset while pronouncing the verdict.
On the other side, The Swiss government introduced a proposed law seeking a ban on these facial coverings to the parliament on October 12. According to the proposed regulation, offenders of the Swiss government's ban on facial coverings could face fines of up to 1,000 Swiss francs (around Rs 81,000). The facial covering has been described as a symbol of political Islam's extremeness by those who support the ban.
After the Swiss government announced their new law, filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri took a jibe at SC judge and asked his opinion on the International laws. In his Twitter, Vivek asked, "I’d like to know the views of Justice Dhulia on this international, Islamophobic conspiracy against Burqa."
Check out the tweet
The split verdict was delivered in the Karnataka hijab row matter when the Supreme Court was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the Karnataka High Court judgment refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state.
In view of the split verdict, the bench directed that the appeals against the high court verdict be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate larger bench. The next SC hearing in front of CJI UU Lalit is set to take place soon.
While pronouncing the judgment, Justice Dhulia said the high court had taken the wrong path and that wearing Hijab is ultimate "A matter of choice, nothing more, nothing less". He said his main thrust in the judgment is the concept of essential religious practice which was not essential to the dispute.
