NEW DELHI: The Karnataka high court on Tuesday upheld the ban on wearing of hijab in classrooms, saying that headscarf is not part of the essential religious practice in Islamic faith.
A three-judge bench made the observation while dismissing a petition by six Udupi Muslim girl students seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classrooms. The students have now moved the Supreme Court against the HC’s order.
In February, the Karnataka government had banned clothes “which disturb equality, integrity and public order” in schools and colleges.
Here’s what the court said while passing its order
* The court said it had framed the following 4 questions after hearing all the arguments and counter-arguments
– Whether wearing hijab/head-scarf is a part of ‘essential religious practice’ in Islamic Faith protected under Article 25 of the Constitution?
– Whether prescription of school uniform is violative of rights?
– Whether the government order of Feb 5 apart from being incompetent and manifestly arbitrary violates Articles 14 and 15?
– Whether any case is made out for issuance of disciplinary inquiry against college authorities?
‘Wearing of hijab only recommendatory’
* While passing the order, the court said that wearing of the headscarf was never mandatory in Islam.
* “The Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women. Whatever is stated in the … suras, we say, is only directory, because of absence of prescription of penalty or penance for not wearing hijab …”
* “There is sufficient intrinsic material within the scripture itself to support the view that wearing hijab has been only recommendatory.”
* “It can be reasonably assumed that the practice of wearing hijab had a thick nexus to the socio-cultural conditions then prevalent in the region. The veil was a safe means for the women to leave the confines of their homes.”
* “What is not religiously made obligatory therefore cannot be made a quintessential aspect of the religion through public agitations or by the passionate arguments in courts.”
* “It can hardly be argued that hijab being a matter of attire, can be justifiably treated as fundamental to Islamic faith. It is not that if the alleged practice of wearing hijab is not adhered to, those not wearing hijab become the sinners, Islam loses its glory and it ceases to be a religion.”
* “[The] Petitioners have miserably failed to meet the threshold requirement of pleadings and proof as to wearing hijab is an inviolable religious practice in Islam and much less a part of ‘essential religious practice’.”
* “In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that wearing of hijab by Muslim women does not form a part of essential religious practice in Islamic faith.”
‘School dress code serves constitutional secularism’
* The court observed that the prescription of school uniform is only a reasonable restriction, constitutionally permissible which the students cannot object to.
* “The school regulations prescribing dress code for all the students as one homogenous class, serve constitutional secularism.”
* “It hardly needs to be stated that schools are ‘qualified public places’ that are structured predominantly for imparting educational instructions to the students. Such ‘qualified spaces’ by their very nature repel the assertion of individual rights to the detriment of their general discipline & decorum. Even the substantive rights themselves metamorphise into a kind of derivative rights in such places.”
* “An extreme argument that the students should be free to choose their attire in the school individually, if countenanced, would only breed indiscipline that may eventually degenerate into chaos in the campus and later in the society at large.”
* “It is too far-fetched to argue that the school dress code militates against the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Articles, 14, 15, 19, 21 & 25 of the Constitution and therefore, the same should be outlawed by the stroke of a pen.”
‘Insistence on wearing hijab, veil may hinder process of emancipation of women’
* “There is a lot of scope for the argument that insistence on wearing of purdah, veil, or headgear in any community may hinder the process of emancipation of woman in general and Muslim woman in particular.”
* “Prescription of school dress code to the exclusion of hijab, bhagwa, or any other apparel symbolic of religion can be a step forward in the direction of emancipation and more particularly, to the access to education.”
* The court also said that the government has power to issue the impugned order dated February 5, 2022 and that no case is made out for its invalidation.
Read the full order here
A three-judge bench made the observation while dismissing a petition by six Udupi Muslim girl students seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classrooms. The students have now moved the Supreme Court against the HC’s order.
In February, the Karnataka government had banned clothes “which disturb equality, integrity and public order” in schools and colleges.
Here’s what the court said while passing its order
* The court said it had framed the following 4 questions after hearing all the arguments and counter-arguments
– Whether wearing hijab/head-scarf is a part of ‘essential religious practice’ in Islamic Faith protected under Article 25 of the Constitution?
– Whether prescription of school uniform is violative of rights?
– Whether the government order of Feb 5 apart from being incompetent and manifestly arbitrary violates Articles 14 and 15?
– Whether any case is made out for issuance of disciplinary inquiry against college authorities?
‘Wearing of hijab only recommendatory’
* While passing the order, the court said that wearing of the headscarf was never mandatory in Islam.
* “The Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women. Whatever is stated in the … suras, we say, is only directory, because of absence of prescription of penalty or penance for not wearing hijab …”
* “There is sufficient intrinsic material within the scripture itself to support the view that wearing hijab has been only recommendatory.”
* “It can be reasonably assumed that the practice of wearing hijab had a thick nexus to the socio-cultural conditions then prevalent in the region. The veil was a safe means for the women to leave the confines of their homes.”
* “What is not religiously made obligatory therefore cannot be made a quintessential aspect of the religion through public agitations or by the passionate arguments in courts.”
* “It can hardly be argued that hijab being a matter of attire, can be justifiably treated as fundamental to Islamic faith. It is not that if the alleged practice of wearing hijab is not adhered to, those not wearing hijab become the sinners, Islam loses its glory and it ceases to be a religion.”
* “[The] Petitioners have miserably failed to meet the threshold requirement of pleadings and proof as to wearing hijab is an inviolable religious practice in Islam and much less a part of ‘essential religious practice’.”
* “In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that wearing of hijab by Muslim women does not form a part of essential religious practice in Islamic faith.”
‘School dress code serves constitutional secularism’
* The court observed that the prescription of school uniform is only a reasonable restriction, constitutionally permissible which the students cannot object to.
* “The school regulations prescribing dress code for all the students as one homogenous class, serve constitutional secularism.”
* “It hardly needs to be stated that schools are ‘qualified public places’ that are structured predominantly for imparting educational instructions to the students. Such ‘qualified spaces’ by their very nature repel the assertion of individual rights to the detriment of their general discipline & decorum. Even the substantive rights themselves metamorphise into a kind of derivative rights in such places.”
* “An extreme argument that the students should be free to choose their attire in the school individually, if countenanced, would only breed indiscipline that may eventually degenerate into chaos in the campus and later in the society at large.”
* “It is too far-fetched to argue that the school dress code militates against the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Articles, 14, 15, 19, 21 & 25 of the Constitution and therefore, the same should be outlawed by the stroke of a pen.”
‘Insistence on wearing hijab, veil may hinder process of emancipation of women’
* “There is a lot of scope for the argument that insistence on wearing of purdah, veil, or headgear in any community may hinder the process of emancipation of woman in general and Muslim woman in particular.”
* “Prescription of school dress code to the exclusion of hijab, bhagwa, or any other apparel symbolic of religion can be a step forward in the direction of emancipation and more particularly, to the access to education.”
* The court also said that the government has power to issue the impugned order dated February 5, 2022 and that no case is made out for its invalidation.
Read the full order here