Split on Hijab: Hindu Editorial on Supreme Court’s decision

a A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has failed to resolve this dispute. Between the freedom of a girl student to wear a head scarf and the state’s interest in making schools a place of equality and secularism. It is unfortunate that the detailed arguments before and against the court did not lead to a clear verdict Karnataka government’s ban on wearing hijab, The split verdict probably reflects the division in the wider society on issues related to secularism and minorities. Justice Hemant Gupta, while rejecting the idea that a hijab could be worn in addition to the uniform, held that allowing a community to wear religious symbols in the classroom would amount to anti-secularism. On the other hand, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia has ruled that asking to remove the head scarf at the entrance of an institution amounts to a breach of their privacy and dignity. The point is that a head scarf that does not interfere with the uniform cannot be a subject of choice without being the target of hostile discrimination; And is the hijab being used to deprive girl students of their right to education? Justice Dhulia represents this view when he insists that discipline should not be at the cost of liberty, when he wonders why a girl wearing a hijab should be a problem of public order and declared that the practice should be A ‘fair housing’ would be a sign of a mature society. He is also sympathetic to the plight of girl students who have to overcome more obstacles than boys to get an education.

Justice Gupta, on the other hand, has put forth equality and discipline as essential features of a secular institution in a diverse country, and rules that the government does not violate any constitutional principle while imposing a prescribed uniform. He even goes on to say that the constitutional goal of fraternity would be defeated if students were allowed to carry their direct religious symbols in the classroom. The split verdict has given rise to the question whether matters on which opinion can sharply divide and have significant political ramifications should be placed before an even number of division benches. In the prevailing political climate, the Karnataka government had either a prescribed uniform or any dress which was mandatory “in the interest of unity, equality and public order”, under the guise of imposing secular norms, equality and discipline in educational institutions with majoritarian claims. as was seen. , a decision that legitimizes this non-inclusive approach to education and a policy that may Denial of opportunity to Muslim women It will not be in the interest of the country. There should be reasonable accommodation as long as the hijab or any dress, religious or otherwise, does not detract from the uniform.