FACTS:-
- The Karnataka Education Act, passed by the Karnataka government in 1983, mandates that all students studying in schools and colleges in the state behave in a fraternal manner, transcend group identity, and incline toward social justice.
- It stipulates that this law was enacted with the aim of promoting secular attitudes through education.
- The Government of Karnataka, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 133 of the Karnataka Education Act, has made it compulsory for all schools in the state to comply with the designated uniform and to wear the hijab within school premises.
- He issued an order not to do so. Exceptions may be made where permitted. The impugned government order was issued under the said law. As a result of this order, Muslim women wearing hijab were prohibited from entering educational institutions.
- On behalf of the aggrieved university students, the Karnataka High Court heard a challenge to the legitimacy of the contested order.
- The Karnataka High Court’s entire panel maintained the state’s prohibition on the hijab in universities and schools.
- As a result, an appeal against the Karnataka High Court’s decision was submitted to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
- What is the extent of the Constitution’s Article 25 mandated religious practises?
- Is donning the headscarf seen as a mandatory religious duty in Islam?
- Whether the government has condemned it. Is secular education intended to be guaranteed to all, or is it in line with the objectives the above-mentioned laws seek to achieve?
CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES:-
- CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
- Wearing the hijab is claimed to be an essential religious practice of Islam. Therefore, any government restriction or ban on the wearing of hijab violates Article 25 of the Constitution.
- One of the rights allegedly protected by Article 19 of the Constitution is the ability to wear clothes that is a part of a uniform.the freedom of speech and expression, as well as the possibility of legitimate restrictions on this right.
- Wearing the hijab does not harm the public interest. Therefore, this is a clear violation of freedom of speech and expression. Submitted that matters of management and discipline of educational institutions are within the jurisdiction of the authorities with jurisdiction over educational institutions and that the courts cannot intervene except in cases of obvious arbitrariness, fraud or fraud not in accordance with the Wednesbury Principles.
- The court ruled that the government regulations under fire were arbitrary and unreasonable and required judicial intervention. It was further submitted that denying admission to an educational institution on the basis of uniform is also a violation of Article 29.
- CONTENTION OF RESPONDENTS:
- It was submitted that the government order banning the wearing of hijab in educational institutions is overall a sound order that is religiously neutral. The state argued on the allegation regarding the violation of article 19 of the Indian Constitution that the fundamental rights are never absolute and can be limited with reasonable restrictions.
- Having bar on wearing of the hijab in educational institutions like schools and universities are reasonable restrictions. The State further argues that imposing a ban on the wearing of the hijab is a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution, since the wearing of the hijab is not an obligatory religious act submitted that it is not considered.
RATIONALE:-
A two-judge panel of the Supreme Court rendered a mixed decision in the matter. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia overturned the Supreme Court’s ruling and abolished the prohibition on the hijab, while Justice Hemant Gupta agreed with the court’s ruling and upheld it.
The Judgement of Hemant Gupta J.
Beginning her ruling with the concept of secularism, Justice Gupta made clear that, from the standpoint of a secular state, wearing the hijab is a question of personal faith or belief in a specific religion. Additionally, it was mentioned that all religions ought to be recognised, treated equally, and have their practises preserved. According to him, Justice Gupta believes that because it goes against secularism, it is improper for schools receiving government funding to symbolically represent religious beliefs.
It is the responsibility of the state to control and regulate the transmission of overt expressions of religious beliefs to educational institutions that are wholly or partially funded by the state. Since it is a religious act, it can be restricted by the state. Regarding the state’s alleged violation of Article 29 of the Constitution, Justice Gupta held that the state did not deny students admission to classes.
The decision not to attend class because of the uniform was determined to be an independent decision by these students. Therefore, the right to wear the hijab in secular schools cannot be invoked as a law.
Therefore, the condemned order cannot be considered to violate the principles of secularism.
The Judgement of Sudhanshu Dhulia, J:
According to Justice Dhulia, the question of whether wearing the hijab is a fundamental requirement has no bearing on the issue before this court. To claim protection under Article 25(1), it is not necessary to prove that the alleged act is her ERP. Any religious practice that concerns conscience or the beliefs of a particular religion is possible and must be compatible with public order, health, and morals.
In educational institutions, discipline is unavoidable, but it cannot be imposed at the price of liberty and dignity, according to Justice Dhulia. He believes that girls should be allowed to wear the hijab both inside and outside of the family, even at school. The privacy and dignity of girls are violated when the hijab is banned. There is no doubt that this violates the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution’s Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21.
He further violates the rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The court held that the constitutionality of the law required judgment. Its effect must be considered on the basis of fundamental rights, not on the subject of national law. Furthermore, a balance must be struck between school discipline and the cultural and religious rights of minorities.
RATIO:-
The court concluded that requiring girls to remove their hijab before entering school was primarily a violation of girls’ privacy and a violation of their dignity. This appears to be a breach of Articles 19(1)(a) and 21.
- Karnataka High Court’s order was set aside.
- The condemned order of the government was removed and
- Abolishment of the restriction on wearing hijab in schools and colleges in Karnataka .
DEFECTS OF LAW:
The Supreme Court made separate rulings on petitions contesting the government’s sentencing policies in its final judgement and order. While Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia accepted the appeal notwithstanding the government order that had been criticised, Justice Hemant Gupta upheld the prohibition on the hijab at educational institutions and denied his appeal. The dispute was sent to India’s Chief Justice in order to appoint a bench in light of the judges’ erroneous decisions. It is no secret that a girl’s ability to receive an education is a source of conflict for her family in many cases. For Muslims, donning the hijab is nevertheless a question of conscience and faith even though it is not a fundamental belief. Whether or not she wears the hijab at home, out, or even in the school should be her decision. For females to attend school, the headscarf may be the only requirement in certain Orthodox families. In these situations, preventing Muslim girls from attending school would be against the law. Teachers and students must maintain discipline because educational institutions are temples of learning. Additionally, students’ dignity must not be compromised by discipline. The court ought to have recognised that while education ought to be uniform, it is not feasible to expect uniformity.
Attempts to establish comparatively homogeneous society may result in conflict between communities or negatively impact religious minorities, which is a universal human problem. Basically, a hijab is an additional piece of cloth that Muslim women who follow Islam wear on their heads. It does not violate the principles of secularism or constitutional fraternity, nor does it harm other religions.
It may also be questioned whether Sikhs have the right to wear kirpans, since modest attire distinctions based on religious affiliation can have far-reaching effects. In case Gurleen Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors, the Punjab and Haryana Full Bench ruled that leaving hair unshorn is a component of Sikh ERP. How can donning the hijab, a religious symbol of a different faith, be compatible with secularism and constitutional fraternity if the ERP’s constitutional recognition of Sikhism is compatible with secularism, constitutional fraternity, and homogeneous education? Will it result in something like this?
INFERENCE:
In India, it is much more difficult for girls in the family to attend school than boys. Girls usually experience greater misfortunes and hurdles when attending school than boys. Therefore, the court should consider this case from the perspective of the difficulties girls face in attending school.
The wearing of the headscarf in schools is the primary point of contention in this case. Do democratic demands seem excessively lofty or unjustified? It is hard to understand how this goes against other clauses in Part III of the Constitution as well as public policy. Minorities have the freedom to found and run the educational institutions of their choice, but they do not have the right to run them poorly. In order to safeguard minorities’ educational needs and the integrity of educational institutions, the state must oversee minorities’ administration. It’s difficult to understand how even donning a hijab might impact classroom behaviour. It is now necessary for us to instill in our pupils principles like compassion, sensitivity, and tolerance towards many languages, cultures, and religions. Rather than being fearful of our diversity, they ought to embrace and delight in it. Courts are required to interpret Articles 19, 21, and 25 of the Constitution harmoniously and with great consideration.
Subhangam Padhy
SOA National Institute of Law, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
Marvelous presentation.