The recent Supreme Court verdict on the Karnataka hijab ban case has reignited discussions on fundamental rights, religious freedom, and women’s issues in India. This article breaks down the essential details surrounding this important development in the country’s judicial landscape.
Background: The Karnataka Hijab Ban Case
In March 2022, a section of Muslim students in Karnataka sought judicial intervention to secure permission to wear the hijab, a traditional Islamic headscarf, in classrooms. However, their petitions were dismissed by the high court, which ruled that wearing the hijab doesn’t form an essential part of the Islamic faith. The ruling elicited mixed reactions from various quarters and was eventually challenged at the Supreme Court.
Understanding the Supreme Court’s Split Verdict
The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on this contentious issue, implying that the justices disagreed on the matter. As per legal norms, in case of a split verdict, the case is typically re-heard by a larger Bench. This could be a three-judge Bench of the High Court or an appeal may be preferred before the Supreme Court.
Previous Rulings on Religious Attire in Educational Institutions
This isn’t the first time the judiciary has been called to rule on matters related to religious attire. In 2015, two petitions were filed at the Kerala High Court against a dress code for All India Pre-Medical Entrance Exam. In response to this, the court directed the Central Board of School Education (CBSE) to implement additional measures for checking students wanting to adhere to their religious customs despite contravening the dress code.
Furthermore, in the landmark case of Amna Bint Basheer v CBSE (2016), the Kerala HC ruled that wearing a hijab constitutes an essential religious practice but did not quash the CBSE rule. It reiterated its previous directive for CBSE to take additional checking measures for students deviating from the dress code due to religious beliefs.
Religious Freedom and the Constitution
Articles 25 to 28 of Part-3 (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution guarantee citizens’ right to freedom of religion. These provisions ensure that individuals have the liberty to practice, profess, and propagate their religion without interference from the state. However, these rights are not absolute and can be restricted on grounds of public order, decency, morality, health, and other state interests.
Implications and Way Forward
The Karnataka government’s stand on prescribed uniforms or dress codes “in the interest of unity, equality, and public order” has been debated extensively. Critics argue that this mandate seems to be a majoritarian assertion under the guise of promoting secular norms, equality, and discipline in educational institutions. They fear that such a policy could potentially deny opportunities to Muslim women.
While it is essential to maintain uniformity and discipline in educational institutions, it is equally important to respect individual rights and religious customs. Therefore, reasonable accommodation should be the way forward, ensuring that religious or personal attire doesn’t detract from the uniform.
