In February 2022, the wearing of hijabs was banned by a government pre-university college in Karnataka. This led to many protests. There were many girls who stood up for the right to wear hijabs. The court maintained that the ban was justified since wearing the hijab is not considered an essential part of any religion by Article 25. The Supreme Court made a split judgment, which called for the matter to be examined further. As a result of the conflict, people throughout the country started talking about religious freedom, equality, dignity, and education.

In this article, we will discuss the UPSC exam preparation, where we will examine the facts, issues, legal provisions, and judgments of the Karnataka High Court and Supreme Court regarding the hijab controversy in the preliminary exam and mains exam.

Global Hijab Bans & Iran's Hijab Movement in Karnataka Hijab Ban

Karnataka Hijab Ban UPSC Notes are important to understand the global hijab bans & Iran hijab movement:

• Tajikistan has officially banned hijabs despite its 95% Muslim population.
• Other countries with varying degrees of hijab restrictions include Germany, Australia, Austria, France, Canada, Russia, and Uzbekistan.
• Demonstrations against Iran’s hijab laws started as early as 1979 when the revolution took place. Because of the “Girl of Enghelab Street” and Mahsa Amini’s death, people are still fighting the law that demands women cover their hair.

• People are worried that stricter dress codes set by schools might infringe the rights of students in Karnataka.
• March 2022: The Karnataka High Court decided that the ban on wearing hijab was sound because Islam does not make it mandatory, and it is not considered an important religious act.
• A two-member bench from the Supreme Court gave a split verdict in October 2022, so the matter remains undecided.

Key Arguments & Court’s Ruling in Karnataka Hijab Ban

Students’ Arguments

• The dress code violates religious freedom and hinders access to education for minority communities.
• It infringes upon constitutional rights, including Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Expression) and Article 25 (Freedom of Religion).
• The ban contradicts UGC’s 2012 regulations aimed at increasing educational access for SC, ST, OBC, and minority communities.

College Administration’s Arguments

• The dress code applies uniformly to all students, ensuring religious neutrality.
• The Karnataka High Court’s 2022 ruling stated that hijab is not an essential religious practice in Islam.
• The institution has the right to maintain discipline, and the dress code is part of its internal regulations.

Bombay High Court’s Verdict

In its judgment, the High court explained that rules set by an institution come first and outweigh the right to wear any personal dress. It upheld the finding of the Karnataka High Court in 2022 saying the state government is correct in banning hijab in government colleges.

• The ruling emphasized that the dress code does not violate UGC regulations on promoting equity in higher education.

Supreme Court Challenge & Karnataka Government’s Stand on Karnataka Hijab Ban

• The Karnataka High Court’s hijab ban ruling is currently under challenge in the Supreme Court hijab ban mumbai, following a split verdict in October 2022.
• The Bombay High Court’s decision may also be contested in the Supreme Court.
• The Karnataka government’s 2022 order cited Section 133(2) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, prohibiting hijabs in government educational institutions.

Judicial Precedents on Hijab Regulations in Karnataka Hijab Ban

• Bombay High Court (2003): Ruled that the Quran does not mandate headscarves.
• Kerala High Court (2015): Allowed additional measures for students wearing religious attire.
• Amna Bint Basheer v CBSE (2016): Recognized hijab as an essential religious practice but upheld CBSE’s dress code.
• Kerala High Court (2018): Prioritized institutional rights over individual religious freedoms.

Constitutional Framework for Religious Freedom in Karnataka Hijab Ban

• Article 25 of Indian Constitution: Grants freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion. 

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution gives people the right to follow any religion, provided it does not disturb public order, morality, or health. In the Karnataka hijab case, people challenging the ban claimed that wearing a hijab is a right given to them by Article 25. Even so, the Karnataka High Court supported the wearing of the hijab not being crucial in Islam and stood for the state’s policy on uniforms. Because the Supreme Court is evenly divided, the problem has not been settled.

• Article 26 of Indian Constitution allows religious institutions to manage their affairs.

By Article 26, the constitution allows religious institutions the authority to manage their affairs and create and maintain religious venues, as long as it does not disturb public order, morality, or health. Petitioners in the Karnataka hijab case claimed that schools and colleges cannot deny individual religious freedom under this article. Courts noted that publicly funded institutions, including schools, are not exclusive to religion, which means the exercise of discipline has first priority instead of promoting religion.

• Article 27 of Indian Constitution: Prohibits taxes for religious promotion, reinforcing secularism.

The Indian Constitution states in Article 27 that the state is not allowed to require its citizens to pay taxes that help any particular religion, thus supporting secularism. People argued that the uniform policy enforced by the government was against their religious freedom in the Karnataka hijab case. Yet courts decided that forcing students to dress a certain way in schools is not promoting any religion, meaning Article 27 does not apply in the hijab ban discussion. People were mainly debating those Articles.

• Article 28 of Indian Constitution: Governs religious instruction in educational institutions.

Because of Article 28 in the Indian Constitution, public schools cannot teach religion as it maintains secularism. The court in the Karnataka hijab case decided that the dress code for schools could be set without affecting or supporting any religious activities. Since the focus of the case was different, Article 28 was not used in the court’s decision. Article 25 (concerns religious freedom) and independent institution management were the main subjects.

• Articles 29 & 30 of Indian Constitution: Protect minority rights in education.

The Constitution of India in Articles 29 and 30 gives minorities the legal ability to maintain their culture and start schools. Those who took part in the case argued that making hijabs illegal in government institutions takes away the rights of minorities, as stated in Article 29. Still, the courts found that uniform rules do not break any of these provisions, since minority educational institutions can set their own policies based on Article 30 to protect their values and education.

Way Forward

• The Supreme Court’s decision can bring definite clarity to the regulations concerning hijab.
• A solution should allow for the protection of religious freedom and, at the same time, preserve the freedom of schools from outside influence.
• The UGC should put in place clear standards to ensure dress codes are the same and to welcome all students.

Conclusion

Hijab case in karnataka high court decision reinforces the legal stance on dress code regulations in educational institutions. However, a balanced approach is necessary to uphold students’ fundamental rights while ensuring academic discipline. The supreme court hijab ban mumbai upcoming decision will be pivotal in shaping the future of hijab regulations in India.