The controversial Hijab case is still being heard as of the time of the Supreme Court judges’ statement.The Karnataka High Court’s ruling upholding the ban on wearing the hijab in Karnataka’s educational institutions is being contested in a number of petitions before the Supreme Court that question the ban on the hijab in educational institutions.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde questioned the state’s authority to prescribe the uniform in accordance with the Karnataka Education Act while speaking on behalf of the petitioners. Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia, who were on the Supreme Court panel hearing the case, responded by asking, “If there is no such power to prescribe uniforms, can girls come in minis, midis, or anything else that they want?”The judges emphasised that some public spaces have a dress code. For instance, some restaurants only permit visitors in a formal dress code, while other restaurants allow visits in casual attire.
Then Hegde attempted to relate the problem to chunni and pagdi. The judges, however, rejected the claim and stated that because the hijab also covers the shoulder, it cannot be compared. Justice Gupta added that “pagdi is not religious, even though my grandfather wore it while practising law, don’t equate it with religion.”When some students who wanted to wear the hijab to college were denied access to the campus, the issue gained attention, and protests in favour of wearing the hijab soon followed. After that, another group of students demanded the right to wear saffron shawls, which ultimately caused unrest in the educational community of Karnataka.
Due to the tense circumstances, the Karnataka government, in accordance with the High Court’s ruling, made adherence to the uniform mandatory and outlawed both the hijab and saffron scarves. Additionally, it was suggested that students wear clothing that embodies the concepts of equality and unity and does not disturb the daily order in cases where a uniform was required by the college administration. The Supreme Court continued its ongoing hearing without reaching a decision, so the case was postponed until the next hearing. Due to the sensitive nature of the national importance issue, the top court will take its time in reaching a decision.
By Subhechcha Ganguly
