By Thomas Scaria
Mangaluru, March 16, 2022: The Karnataka High Court order upholding the government ban on hijab in educational institutions the southern Indian state has evoked mixed responses.
The government on February 5 banned wearing hijab in state-run schools and colleges stating “Hijab is not an essential religious practice of Islam.”
A full bench of the High Court, headed by the Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, held that the government’s order is not against the article 25 of the Indian Constitution that allows citizens freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion without affecting public order, morality and health.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the petitions filed by five Muslim girl students who were denied entry into a government pre university college in Udupi, a coastal town in Karnataka, earlier this year.
Their lawyers had contended that the restriction on hijab to classrooms is a violation of fundamental rights and religious rights.
The petitioners immediately moved the Supreme in New Delhi against the High Court verdict. Six Muslim students from Udupi have challenged the verdict in the apex court.
Their special leave petition says the High Court has failed to note that Karnataka Education Act does not provide for any mandatory uniform to be worn by students and the right to wear a hijab falls under the ambit of right to privacy.
The petitioners have also stated that the high court has erred in creating a dichotomy of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and the court has inferred that those who follow a religion cannot have the right to conscience.
Ahead of the verdict, the administration had beefed up security across the state. A holiday was declared for educational institutions in Dakshina Kannada, Kalaburagi and Shivamogga districts.
The hijab row, which started as a protest by six students of the Udupi Pre-University Girl’s College, turned into a big crisis and was in national and international media.
However, no violent protests or celebrations were reported after the court’s March 15 order.
Muslim leaders are yet to react on the court stand that hijab is not an essential religious practice in Islam.
However, others say a ban on hijab is not necessary as long as it does not interfere with peace and order in society.
Father Faustine Lobo, spokesperson of the Karnataka bishops’ council, says the purpose of uniform is to ensure equality and dignity for the children in schools and “this must be practiced by all.”
The hijab issue in Karnataka, he told Matters India, was created politically and this verdict was expected.
While crediting the court order as “not biased” and based on constitutional rights, the Catholic priest said “the court could have been more sensitive” by giving some exceptions like wearing a headscarf in the same color as the school uniform.”
Eric Christopher Lobo, an educationist in Karnataka, said the court order does not affect private schools and colleges in the state where they can have their own policies. Some Christian-managed schools and colleges have already banned hijab on campuses.
Father Lobo said many cultural or social practices have come up at later stages in religions, and need not be “an essential religious practice as the court has observed.”
The Communist Party of India Marxist Leninist (CPIML) has expressed concern at the high court judgment, which it says has failed to protect the hijab-wearing women’ right to education from the government’s arbitrary and discriminatory order and rules made by educational institutions under pressure from Hindu-supremacist groups.
The leftist group alleges that the court order has emboldened Hindu-supremacist forces, who now forcibly seek to remove hijabs of Muslim women as a condition to enter and educational institutions all over India.
The CPIML statement was endorsed by 18 organizations working for women’s rights and democratic rights.
They expressed the hope the Supreme Court, which is already apprised of the issue, would protect the hijab-wearing Muslim women from discrimination and exclusion in the name of school or college uniforms.
They also appealed College Development Councils in Karnataka to allow women to wear hijabs along with uniforms just as Sikh boys and men can wear turbans, and Hindus can wear bindis, tilaks, threads, and sindoor.
They regretted that the High Court has failed to address bullying in educational institutions and thus endangering many people from minority communities.
No offence meant, but if a religious minority is so hell-bent on having its own terms as regards dressing allowed in the educational arena, it is best that they have their children enrolled only in educational institutions started and run by a given minority community where nobody but nobody can claim the right to legislate on any dress code whatsoever.
The BJP government has nothing else to perform?
The Karnataka High Court order is very clear and absolutely unambiguous based on the tenets of the Koran. Going to the Supreme Court, which of course is a right of the Appellants, will in all probability bear the same result. The litigants appear to have been swayed and funded by vested interests.
Not mentioned in the Quran. So no Hijab. In Ayodhya verdict, it was a natter of faith. There was no mention of the temple in Hindu scriptures. What logic?