Karnataka High Court's Hijab verdict: 10 big points
Dismissing all writ petitions by girl or women students, the court declared that educational institutions have a right to prescribe uniforms.
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed various petitions challenging a ban on Hijab in educational institutions. The court said that wearing a hijab is not an essential practice related to religion. Here's all you need to know:
- Withstanding the Karnataka government's order dated February 5, the Karnataka High Court ruled that the existing ban imposed on wearing hijab in educational institutions will continue to stay put.
- Dismissing all writ petitions by girl or women students, the court declared that educational institutions have a right to prescribe uniforms.
- The court also said that the Karnataka government's order banning the hijab in educational institutions is not unconstitutional.
- Explaining the court's decision, Chief Justice said that taking a holistic view, the court formulated a few questions and answered them accordingly.
- The court took into consideration whether Hijab is an essential religious practice, whether it is guaranteed under article 25, whether the prescription of school uniform is violative of rights, and whether the Government is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
- Considering all this, the court ruled that Hijab is not an essential religious practice under the Islamic faith, which is protected under article 25.
- The Karnataka government's order dated February 5 restrained students from wearing any cloth that could disturb, peace, harmony, and public order.
- Six girls of a college in Udupi had approached the Karnataka High Court seeking relief and quashing the government order. The full bench of the High Court has been hearing the case on a day-to-day basis since February 10.
- Prescription of school uniform is a reasonable restriction which student could not object to, the Karnataka High Court said while making the judgment.
- Institutional discipline prevails over individual choice. The judgment marks a paradigm shift in the interpretation of Article 25 of the constitution, said Karnataka Advocate General, Prabhuling Navadgi.