Today, two Supreme Court justices disagreed on whether Karnataka’s prohibition on the hijab in classrooms should be upheld or repealed and asked for a larger bench to hear the case. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that he “respectfully disagreed” with Justice Hemant Gupta’s support for the hijab ban because he valued girls’ education more.
As they issued their rulings, both judges used strong language.
Secularism, constitutional freedoms, and promoting girls’ education were among the points made by Justice Dhulia. “One of the many features of our Constitution is trust. A document of trust is also our constitution. The faith that the minority has placed in the majority, “said Justice Dhulia.
“The presence of discipline in classrooms is essential. Discipline, however, must not come at the expense of either freedom or dignity. A pre-university student’s privacy and dignity are violated if her hijab is required to be removed at the school entrance “declared the judge.
“One of the most beautiful sights to see in India nowadays is a young girl heading off to school in the morning while carrying her school bag. She is our future and our hope. But it is also true that a girl has a far harder time getting an education than her brother does “Justice Dhulia made a note.
However, he observed that a girl kid had to complete household duties in many areas of India before attending school. “Is this (the hijab ban) improving her life in any way?”
In the end, it comes down to personal preference; nothing else.
“The petitioners’ only demand is the hijab! In a democracy, is it too much to ask? How does it violate morality, public order, or health? What about decency?”
Justice Hemant Gupta presented the other viewpoint, arguing that as secularism applies to all people, allowing one community to wear religious symbols would be “antithetical to secularism.” If students were permitted to bring religious symbols to class, he claimed, the fraternity’s constitutional mission would be thwarted.
“Admission to state-run schools is open to everyone, regardless of religion, race, caste, or language. Even the Act requires that students be admitted without limitations based on such factors. However, students are expected to abide by the school’s rules regarding uniform, “The judge said.”The religious belief cannot be carried to a secular school maintained out of state funds. It is open to the students to carry their faith in a school which permits them to wear hijab or any other mark, may be tilak, which can be identified to a person holding a particular religious belief but the state is within its jurisdiction to direct that the apparent symbols of religious beliefs cannot be carried to schools maintained by the state from state funds,” Justice Gupta said.
Justice Gupta raised 11 questions in his order, which include:
- Whether the appeal should be referred to a Constitution bench
- Whether colleges can decide on the uniform of students
- Whether wearing the hijab and restricting it violates the freedom of religion (Article 25)
- Whether Article 25 and Article 19 (Freedom of speech and expression) are mutually exclusive
- Whether the Karnataka ban infringes upon fundamental rights.
- If wearing the hijab is essential practice under Islam.
- Whether the government order serves the purpose of access to education.
“I think the answer works against the appellant. I reject the appeal “stated Justice Gupta.
The Karnataka government’s prohibition on the headscarf on college campuses has being contested by Muslim students. The ban order dated February 5 made reference to attire “that undermine equality, integrity, and public order in schools and universities” and contrasted hijabs with Sikh turbans and Hindu bindis.
The Karnataka High Court declined to lift the prohibition on March 15. The High Court order was contested by the students before the Supreme Court.
