The Hijab Conundrum

Women’s choice is an uncommon occurrence. There are times when this is blatantly clear. For instance, Iran is now working to make the hijab a requirement, and in India, Karnataka has decreed that the hijab is not permitted to be worn in classes. While focused on immediate issues, both State actions have sparked demonstrations that may obfuscate the issue of women’s standing throughout many countries, the irony is unavoidable. The Supreme Court’s divided decision on petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court’s prohibition on the hijab in educational institutions highlighted the irony by raising related issues, some of which were unique to India’s circumstances.

The state government’s directive dated February 5 authorizing management committees of preschool colleges to prohibit headscarves from being worn on school grounds was overturned by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia. The Karnataka government, on the other hand, won Justice Hemant Gupta’s support, claiming that the purpose of the decision was “simply to create consistency and encourage a secular environment” in the classroom. The tension on the bench is a reflection of the complicated issues posed in the court’s arguments, including the state’s ability to place legitimate limits on people’s freedom of religion and conscience, the notion of essential practices, free will, and collective identity.

At least two petitions contesting the All India Pre-Medical Entrance dress code, which called for wearing “light garments with half sleeves not having huge buttons, brooch/badge, flower, etc. with Salwar/Trouser” and “slippers and not shoes,” were filed with the Kerala High Court in 2015. The Kerala High Court ordered the Central Board of School Education (CBSE) to implement additional measures for checking students who “intend to wear a dress according to their religious custom, but contrary to the dress code,” despite the Central Board of School Education’s (CBSE) argument that the rule was only intended to prevent candidates from using unfair methods by concealing objects within clothes. The Kerala High Court focused more on the problem in Amna Bint Basheer v. CBSE (2016). Although the Court concluded that wearing a headscarf is a vital religious practice, it left the CBSE regulation in place. The precautions and “extra procedures” put in place in 2015 were once more approved by the court. However, in Fathima Tasneem v. State of Kerala, another Bench made a contrary decision regarding a school’s required uniform (2018). The Kerala High Court’s single bench ruled that the petitioner’s individual rights would not take precedence over the institution’s collective rights.

In the current political atmosphere, the Karnataka government’s requirement of either a prescribed uniform or any attire “in the interest of unity, equality, and public order” was perceived as a majoritarian assertion disguising the enforcement of secular norms, equality, and discipline in educational institutions. A decision that validates this exclusive educational philosophy and a policy that could result in Muslim women being denied opportunities are not in the best interests of the nation. If the hijab or any other religious or nonreligious clothing does not distract from the uniform, reasonable accommodations should be made.