The case of the inauguration of the Mysore Dussehra ceremony with a Muslim woman reached the Supreme Court, the Karnataka High Court refused to stay the state government’s decision
The case of starting the Mysore Dussehra celebrations with a non -Hindu has reached the Supreme Court. A petitioner has challenged the order of the Karnataka High Court, which justified the decision of the state government. The Supreme Court has said to hear on Friday, September 19.
Keeping the case in court on behalf of the petitioner HS Gaurav, his lawyer said that the ceremony begins with the traditional worship of Chamundeshwari Devi. The state government is going to invite a Muslim woman to the temple and inaugurate the program. It is directly interfere in religious matters.
The petitioner’s counsel requested a hearing on Friday, citing the introduction of the program from 22 September. Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai agreed with this. Earlier on September 15, the Karnataka High Court refused to interfere in the case.
The Government of Karnataka has invited the Pulitzar Award -awarded writer Banu Mushtaq as the chief guest and inaugurator of the 2025 Dussehra festival. Some petitions were filed against this in the High Court. It was said that the inauguration of Dussehra is not a secular activity. It is a sacred ritual, which occurs according to Hindu religious practices and traditions. This includes many laws including lighting the lamp, offering flowers to the goddess.
The petitioners had argued that no non -Hindu started the Dussehra program in history. This step of the state government is going to hurt the religious sentiments of millions of Hindus. Also, it is a violation of religious freedom and right to manage religious affairs in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
These petitions were dismissed by the Karnataka High Court. The High Court had said that the invitation to Banu Mushtaq does not violate Article 25 or 26. The Dussehra festival organizes the state government. She can call prestigious persons in it, irrespective of any religion. No rights of the petitioner are being violated in this case.