Hijab Ban: Prescription Of Uniform Dress Code For All Students Serves Constitutional Secularism: Karnataka HC
Background Context: Hijab Ban & Uniform Dress Code
The controversy arose when some female students in Karnataka colleges wore the Hijab (Islamic headscarf) to attend classes.
The educational institutions prescribed a uniform dress code for all students.
Some students claimed that the ban on wearing Hijab violated their fundamental right to freedom of religion (Article 25 & 26).
The Karnataka High Court examined if the uniform dress code violated fundamental rights or served the larger constitutional values, including secularism.
Principle:
Prescription of a Uniform Dress Code for All Students Serves Constitutional Secularism
Uniform dress code means all students wear the same clothes, ensuring equality and neutrality in the school environment.
This avoids any visible religious distinctions that may affect the secular ethos of the institution.
The aim is to maintain neutrality and harmony among students from diverse religious backgrounds.
It is not to target or discriminate against any particular religion, but to promote an environment free from religious assertion in educational spaces.
Detailed Explanation with Case Law from Karnataka HC and Indian Supreme Court
1. Karnataka High Court: Hijab Case (2022-23)
The Karnataka HC upheld the ban on wearing the Hijab in classrooms by holding that wearing a Hijab was not an essential religious practice mandated by Islam.
The Court observed that the uniform dress code prescribed by the college was reasonable, and it applied equally to all students, irrespective of religion.
The Court held that the uniformity of dress serves the constitutional principle of secularism by preventing any one religion from asserting its identity in an educational institution.
The Court balanced the right to religious freedom with the right of the institution to enforce discipline and secular uniformity.
It ruled that wearing the Hijab cannot be claimed as an indispensable religious practice that overrides the institution’s dress code policy.
Key takeaway: Uniform dress code is a secular measure ensuring equality and harmony among students of all religions.
2. Essential Religious Practices Test (S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918)
The Supreme Court has held that not all religious practices are “essential” for the religion.
The Court can determine whether a practice is an essential religious practice.
This test helps in deciding if a practice (like wearing Hijab) is constitutionally protected under religious freedom.
Karnataka HC used this principle to hold that Hijab is not an essential practice of Islam mandating constitutional protection.
3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461)
The Supreme Court held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.
Secularism implies no state religion, and the state maintains an attitude of equal respect to all religions.
This includes the educational institutions maintaining a neutral environment, which can justify a uniform dress code to avoid religious assertions.
4. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (AIR 1986 SC 180)
Although the Court upheld the right of Jehovah’s Witness students to not sing the national anthem based on religion, it also highlighted that rights under Article 25 (freedom of religion) are subject to public order, morality, and health.
Similarly, the Karnataka HC balanced religious freedom with the need for order and discipline through a uniform dress code.
Constitutional Values at Play:
| Right to Religious Freedom (Article 25 & 26) | Secularism & Equality (Preamble, Article 14 & 15) |
|---|---|
| Individuals have the right to practice religion | State and institutions must be neutral and secular |
| But rights are subject to reasonable restrictions | Uniform dress ensures neutrality and equality |
| Practice must be an essential religious practice | Prevents religious assertion that may disturb harmony |
Why Uniform Dress Code Serves Constitutional Secularism:
Ensures all students are on an equal footing, avoiding any visible religious distinctions.
Maintains the secular and neutral ethos of the institution.
Avoids any possibility of religious tension or discrimination in the learning environment.
Respects discipline and uniformity necessary for orderly education.
Does not deny religious freedom but places reasonable restrictions to balance collective interests.
Summary:
The Karnataka High Court upheld the Hijab ban based on the principle that the uniform dress code serves constitutional secularism.
It recognized the right to freedom of religion but held it subject to the essential religious practice test and reasonable restrictions.
The uniform dress code ensures equality, secularism, and harmony among students.
This approach balances individual religious rights with the institutional need for neutrality and discipline.
RELATED Blog
0 comments