New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday again declined urgent hearing but indicated at soon listing the petitions against the Karnataka High Court judgment, which upheld the state government’s ban on Hijab in pre-university colleges.

As senior advocate Meenakshi Arora mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana saying that the matter needs urgent hearing, the Chief Justice said: “I will list the matter, wait for two days.”

Earlier, the apex court had declined to urgently hear petitions challenging the high court judgment. Several petitions have been filed in the apex court challenging the high court judgment.

On March 24, the Supreme Court declined to give any specific date to hear a plea challenging the Karnataka High Court order, which dismissed all petitions seeking direction for permission to wear hijab in classrooms.

Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat mentioned one of the cases on behalf of a petitioner, a Muslim girl student, and sought urgent listing of the matter. Kamat insisted that exams are approaching and urged the court to urgent hearing on the matter.

However, a bench headed by Chief Justice Ramana said this has nothing to do with exams, and told Kamat not to sensationalise the matter. Kamat contended that the girl students are not being allowed to enter the schools, and they will lose one year. However, the bench moved on to the next item.

On March 16, the Supreme Court had declined to grant an urgent hearing on a plea challenging the high court order, which held that wearing of hijab by Muslim women does not form a part of essential religious practice in Islamic faith.

Then, senior advocate Sanjay Hedge, representing the petitioners, mentioned the plea before a bench headed by Chief Justice Ramana. Hedge said there is urgency in the matter, as several girls have to appear in exams. The bench said others have also mentioned and the court will look into the matter.

A plea filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed and Rahamathullah Kothwal had said the high court order creates an unreasonable classification between the non-Muslim female students and the Muslim female students and thereby is in straight violation of the concept of secularism which forms the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners are Mohamed Arif Jameel and others.

The plea said: “The impugned order is also in sheer violation of the Article 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution and also violates the core principles of the International Conventions that India is a signatory to.”