IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Ritu Raj Awasthi, Krishna S. Dixit, J.M Khazi, JJ.
Smt. Resham – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WP No. 2347, 2146, 2880, 3038, 3044 of 2022
Decided On : 10-02-2022
Hijab - Educational Institutions - Karnataka Education Act, 1983, Section 7 & 133 - Rule 11 of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation & Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions challenge the insistence of certain educational institutions that no girl student shall wear the hijab in classrooms. The court is seized with important issues of constitutional significance and personal law, and the ongoing agitations and closure of educational institutions are causing concern.
Finding of the Court:
The court expresses concern over the closure of educational institutions and emphasizes the need for peace and tranquility. It requests the State Government and stakeholders to reopen the institutions and allow students to return to classes. Pending consideration of the petitions, the court restrains all students from wearing certain religious attire within the classroom.
Issues: The issues involve the right to wear hijab as a part of essential religious practice, the authority of the State Government to mandate student uniform, and the need to maintain peace and tranquility in educational institutions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the need for a deeper examination of whether wearing hijab in the classroom is a part of essential religious practice of Islam in the light of constitutional guarantees. It also highlights the importance of maintaining peace and tranquility in educational institutions.
Final Decision: The court requests the reopening of educational institutions and restrains students from wearing certain religious attire within the classroom, pending further consideration of the petitions.
ORDER :
1. All these writ petitions essentially seek to lay a challenge to the insistence of certain educational institutions that no girl student shall wear the hijab (headscarf) whilst in the classrooms. Some of these petitions call in question the Government Order dated 05.02.2022 issued under sections 7 & 133 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. This order directs the College Development Committees all over the State to prescribe 'Student Uniform', presumably in terms of Rule 11 of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation & Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995.
2. A Single Judge (Krishna S Dixit J) vide order dated 09.02.2022 i.e., yesterday, has referred these cases to Hon'ble the Chief Justice to consider if these matters can be heard by a Larger Bench 'regard being had to enormous public importance of the questions involved'. Accordingly, this Special Bench comprising of three Judges has immediately been constituted and these cases are taken up for consideration.
3. We have heard the learned Senior Advocates Mr.Sanjay Hegde & Mr. Devadatt Kamat appearing for the petitioners respectively in W.P.No.2146/2022 & W.P.No.2880/2022 for some time. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State also made some submissions.
4. Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned Sr. Adv. argues that :
The 1983 Act does not have any provision which enables the educational institutions to prescribe any uniform for the students. The 1995 Rules apart from being incompetent are not applicable to Pre-University institutions since they are promulgated basically for Primary & Secondary schools. These Rules do not provide for the imposition of any penalty for violation of the dress code if prescribed by the institutions. Even otherwise the expulsion of the students for violating the dress code would be grossly disproportionate to the alleged infraction of the dress code. All stakeholders should make endeavors to create an atmosphere of peace & tranquility so that the students go back to the schools and prosecute their studies. Nobody should pollute the congenial atmosphere required for pursuing education. All stakeholders should show tolerance & catholicity so that the girl students professing & practicing Islamic faith can attend the classes with hijab and the institutions should not insist upon the removal of hijab as a condition for gaining entry to the classrooms.
5. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Devadatt Kamat basically assailed the subject Government Order contending that the decisions of Kerala, Madras & Bombay High Courts on which it has been structured have been wrongly construed by the Govt. as hijab being not a part of essential religious practice of Islamic faith and that there is a gross non-application of mind attributable to the Government. He also submits that the State Government has no authority or competence to issue the impugned order mandating the College Development Committees to prescribe student uniform. He submits that dress & attire are a part of speech & expression; right to wear hijab is a matter of privacy of the citizens and that institutions cannot compel them to remove the same.
6. In response, learned Advocate General shortly contends that no prima facie case is made out for the grant of any interim relief. The impugned order per se does not prescribe any uniform since what uniform should be prescribed by the institutions is left to them. The agitation should come to an end immediately and peace & tranquility should be restored in the society; there is no difficulty for the reopening of the institutions that are closed for a few days in view of disturbances and untoward incidents. The agitating students should go back to schools. He denies the submissions made on behalf of petitioners. Learned Advocate General also brought to the notice of the Court that there are several counter agitations involving students who want to gain entry to the institutions with saffron and blue shawls and other such symbolic clothes a
The right to wear hijab as a part of essential religious practice and the need to balance it with reasonable restrictions as provided by the Constitution of India.
Point of Law : Hijab Case - Schools & institutions have power to prescribe student uniform.
Hijab restrictions – Right to wear hijab in School – Denial of education - Wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of Choice - It may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it ....
(1) Prescription of dress code for college – Regulation of such a dress code has to be treated as an exercise towards maintaining discipline at Institution – This right flows from recognized fundamen....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing material particulars and making representations to relevant statutory authorities in public interest litigations.
State regulatory bodies exercising statutory power to prescribe textbooks and curricula for affiliated private schools act within their legal competence and satisfy the requirement of reasonableness ....
The court reaffirmed that student union elections are a constitutional right tied to educational integrity and must comply with established guidelines to balance democratic participation and academic....
The fundamental right to conduct student union elections is upheld, necessitating adherence to recommendations by the Lyngdoh Committee while ensuring academic integrity and discipline.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.