Karnataka HC reserves order on pleas against hijab curbs in colleges

Before the hijab-linked petitions were reserved for judgment, S Balan, a social activist and lawyer, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) stating that Muslim girls were being harassed by the media and the education authorities by forcing them to remove headscarves outside school and college campuses.

By: Express News Service

Bengaluru | Updated: February 26, 2022 04:52 AM IST

3 min read

“The students have been humiliated,'' the lawyer argued, calling the action of the electronic media “child abuse”. (File)

The Karnataka high court on Friday reserved its judgment in the matter involving the restrictions imposed on wearing the hijab in classrooms after two weeks of daily hearings of a batch of petitions filed by Muslim girls from government pre-university colleges in the Udupi district.

He sought a court directive to restrict the media from intruding into the privacy of students by chasing them and filming them and the school and college authorities from forcing them to remove the hijab and burkha at the entrance of educational institutions.

Also Read | Hijab freedom of expression, not of religion, can be curbed: Karnataka AG

“The students have been humiliated,” the lawyer argued, calling the action of the electronic media “child abuse”.

The HC full bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna Dixit and Justice JM Khazi did not issue any orders but disposed of the PIL, saying “whoever is aggrieved can make complaints to appropriate authorities”.

The two-week-long hearings saw the Muslim girls’ lawyers argue that the right to wear the hijab in classrooms was part of the freedom of religion and expression, assailing the Karnataka education department’s February 5 order suggesting that the headscarf can be prohibited in institutions.

The February 5 order was termed as inadmissible in administrative practice.

Story continues below this ad

It was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that the college committees do not have the power to prescribe uniforms in pre-university colleges since they are not statutory bodies.

Karnataka advocate general Prabhuling Navadgi said that the government order was innocuous and did not direct the prohibition of religious attire but left it to the discretion of institutions. The AG, however, admitted certain portions of the order may have been unnecessary.

He also argued that wearing of the hijab does not constitute an essential religious practice and that it does not fall in the category of freedom of religion but in the category of freedom of expression which can be curbed for discipline.

The full bench constituted specifically to hear the hijab petitions had on February 10 passed a order which was misconstrued as a ban on the hijab in schools and colleges despite clarifications by the court that it applied only to state institutions with dress codes.