The Karnataka high court ruled on Tuesday that hijab is not an essential part of Islam, in a way underlining the state government’s restriction on the use of the headscarf by Muslim girls and women in educational institutions.
The three-judge bench of chief justice Raj Ritu Awasthi, justice Krishna S Dixit, and justice JM Khazi said that taking a holistic view of the entire matter, they have formulated a few questions and answered accordingly.
The Indian government is considering whether wearing hijab is an essential religious practice under the Islamic faith, and whether prescribing school uniforms is a violation of the student’s rights. The questions raised were raised by a group of students who feel that their right to freedom of expression and privacy are being violated.
Chief Justice Awasthi read out the verdict, stating that wearing of a hijab by Muslim women does not form part of the essential religious practice in Islam.
How to watch Tata IPL 2022 free Without Subscription – Know Details Here
The second question is whether or not a prescription of a school uniform is constitutional. We believe that it is, as the students cannot object to it. The third question regards the government’s power to issue an order and no case has been made against its validity.
Anas Tanwir, a Supreme Court lawyer, tweeted that students in the contentious Udupi college will contest the order in the Supreme Court. Tanwir said that he has met with his clients in the Hijab matter and is moving to SC soon to file an appeal. These girls have not lost hope in Courts and Constitution, according to Tanwir’s tweet.
The Karnataka education minister BC Nagesh welcomed the landmark judgement of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court on school/college uniform rules. The ruling reiterated that the law of the land is above everything, and students should be able to wear what they want to wear in accordance with their own beliefs.
ALSO READ | ‘The Kashmir Files’ Gets Tax-Free In Different States – Know More Here
On February 9, the bench heard a batch of petitions filed by girls seeking permission to wear hijab in educational institutions. On December 28, the girls were denied entry into a pre-university government college for girls in Udupi for wearing the headscarf. This sparked the debate.
A statewide row erupted last month after more colleges announced a ban on wearing hijab. Hindu groups mobilized groups of men wearing saffron shawls to oppose the entry of women in hijab into schools and colleges, while isolated clashes broke out in Shivamogga forcing the state government to issue a controversial order on February 5 that said students will not be allowed to attend classes wearing hijabs.
On February 10, the court issued an interim order that said students should not wear any religious attire to classes until the end of the hearing. On February 23, it clarified that this order is applicable to all degree and PU colleges with a dress code.
The exchange of words between the two judges capped judicial proceedings that have held the interest of the nation over the past few weeks.
The case at hand centres around Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which pertains to religious freedom. The arguments made in the case revolve largely around this article and its implications for educational institutes and minorities in India.
The female students argued that wearing hijab is an essential religious practice under Islam and the suspension of the same, even for a few hours during school, undermines their fundamental rights.
Lawyer Devdatt Kamat cited several cases from other countries in support of his argument that wearing a nose ring is not an infringement of school regulations. He also mentioned the case of Sonali Pillai, who successfully challenged her school’s order to remove her nose ring in court.
Kamat said that wearing a hijab is an innocent practice of faith and not a display of religious jingoism.
Senior advocate Ravi Varma Kumar said the discrimination against Muslim girls is purely based on religion as Hindu girls wearing bangles and Christian girls wearing cross were not sent out of educational institutes.
The petitioners argued that wearing a hijab does not disrupt public order, and that it is an integral part of Islam.
The state government argued that the petitioners were seeking to declare the hijab as an “essential religious practice”, which would bind every Muslim woman to follow a particular dress code. Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi went on to argue that the petitioners did not place any material on record to substantiate their claim for a declaration that wearing a hijab is an essential religious practice.
ALSO READ | Watch: On screening of The Kashmir Files, Audience was in tears and got goosebumps
