On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard a petition by a Chennai resident praying to suppress the FIR submitted to him in Bengaluru. Make a hijab decision. The petitioner is a  member of the State Audit Board of Tamil Nadu Thowheed jamath. He is said to have addressed a small gathering in Madurai’s Goriparayan following a Karnataka High Court ruling that violated wearing a hijab in the classroom. The petitioner argued that he faced tremendous difficulty and would not be able to call different courts and police stations in two different states because of the two FIRs. In addition, he said the continuation of investigations in both  FIRs by two different investigative authorities was equivalent to abuse of rights.

 “Petitioners are submitting their current petition in very urgent circumstances as several FIRs are registered in different parts of the country (Madurai, Tamil Nadu and Bangalore, Karnataka). .. Two parallel investigations are being conducted in two different jurisdictions by two different investigative bodies related to the same count. ” “Under these circumstances, the petitioner seeks urgent relief from this venerable court, invalidates the second FIR for which this application is pending, and submits a future FIR based on the same count. We demand that we give injunctions to limit, especially for the following reasons that do not interfere with each other: “He added.

 In support of the  February 5, 2022 classroom ban on the hijab, Judge Ritu Raj Awasthi, Judge Krishna S. Dixit, and Judge JM Kaji of the Karnataka High Court filed numerous state-like allegations. I have decided. A government order prohibiting the wearing of headscarves in the classroom. The Supreme Court also argued that the government had the power to issue an order on February 5, 2022, which was being appealed, and no proceedings were filed to invalidate it. By that order, the Government of Karnataka banned Muslim girls from wearing clothes that disturbed the equality, integrity and public order of schools and universities that they challenged in the High Court. The bank also denied a motion to initiate disciplinary action against the university, its principals and teachers.