"Students can wear Hijab or tilak in Schools which permit them. But the State can prevent symbols of religious beliefs being carried to school maintained by the State or from the State funds". Justice Hemant Gupta.

   

Aishat Shifa vs The State of Karnataka and others.
Civil Appeal 7095 of 2022 decided on 13 October 2022
Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

23. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length. I find that the following questions arise for consideration in the present appeals: 

(i) Whether the appeals should be heard along with Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In Re-9J) and/or should the present appeals be referred to the Constitution Bench in terms of Article 145(3) of the Constitution?

(ii) Whether the State Government could delegate its decision to implement the wearing of uniform by the College Development Committee or the Board of Management and whether the Government Order insofar as it empowers a College Development Committee to decide on the restriction/prohibition or otherwise on headscarves is ex facie violative of Section 143 of the Act?

(iii) What is ambit and scope of the right to freedom of ‘conscience’ and ‘religion’ under Article 25? 

(iv) What is the ambit and scope of essential religious practices under Article 25 of the Constitution? 

(v) Whether fundamental rights of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and right of privacy under Article 21 mutually exclusive or are they complementary to each other; and whether the Government Order does not meet the injunction of reasonableness for the purposes of Article 21 and Article 14? 

(vi) Whether the Government Order impinges upon Constitutional promise of fraternity and dignity under the Preamble as well as fundamental duties enumerated under Article 51-A sub-clauses (e) and (f)? 

(vii) Whether, if the wearing of hijab is considered as an essential religious practice, the student can seek right to wear headscarf to a secular school as a matter of right? 

(viii) Whether a student-citizen in the constitutional scheme is expected to surrender her fundamental rights under Articles 19, 21 and 25 as a precondition for accessing education in a State institution? 

(ix) Whether in the constitutional scheme, the State is obligated to ensure ‘reasonable accommodation’ to its citizens? 

(x) Whether the Government Order is contrary to the legitimate State interest of promoting literacy and education as mandated under Articles 21, 21A, 39(f), 41, 46 and 51A of the Constitution? 

(xi) Whether the Government Order neither achieves any equitable access to education, nor serves the ethic of secularism, nor is true to the objective of the Karnataka Education Act?”

125. There is no dispute about the proposition canvassed. The practice of wearing of hijab may be a ‘religious practice’ or an ‘essential religious practice’ or it may be social conduct for the women of Islamic faith. The interpretations by the believers of the faith about wearing of headscarf is the belief or faith of an individual. The religious belief cannot be carried to a secular school maintained out of State funds. It is open to the students to carry their faith in a school which permits them to wear Hijab or any other mark, may be tilak, which can be identified to a person holding a particular religious belief but the State is within its jurisdiction to direct that the apparent symbols of religious beliefs cannot be carried to school maintained by the State from the State funds. Thus, the practice of wearing hijab could be restricted by the State in terms of the Government Order.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Back to Golaknath – Cosmic journey of the Basic Structure doctrine.

Supreme Court Judge’s children and relatives indulged in sharp practice to obtain favourable orders from the trial Court Judges. Justice Krishna Bhat revels shocking state of affairs.

"Stop pleasing superior Court Judges in the name of protocol. Your judicious acts will protect you". Justice Krishna Bhat urges trial Court Judges.