Authored By : Reema basheer
Middlesex university Dubai
- Case Title and Citation
Aishat Shifa and Others v State of Karnataka and Others (2022)
Citation: (2022) SCC OnLine Kar 313
- Court Name and Bench
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Bench: Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit, Justice J M Khazi
Bench Type: Full Bench constituted due to the constitutional importance and public attention surrounding the matter
- Date of Judgment
15 March 2022
- Parties Involved
Petitioners
The petitioners were Muslim female students studying in Government Pre-University Colleges in Udupi district, Karnataka. They challenged the actions of their colleges which prevented them from wearing the hijab inside classrooms. They argued that the hijab is an expression of their religious identity, personal choice, and fundamental right. Their case rested on the claim that wearing the hijab is a protected religious practice under Article 25 of the Constitution, and that prohibiting it inside classrooms violates their fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), freedom of expression (Article 19), and personal liberty and privacy (Article 21).
Respondents
The respondents included the State of Karnataka through the Department of Education, various college authorities, and other state officials. Their defence centred on justifying the Government Order issued on 5 February 2022. They argued that the Order merely directed educational institutions to follow uniforms prescribed by their College Development Committees, and that such uniform requirements were essential for maintaining discipline, unity, and a secular academic environment.
- Facts of the Case
The dispute began in late 2021 at a Government Pre-University College in Udupi where six Muslim girl students were not allowed to sit inside classrooms while wearing the hijab. College staff claimed that the hijab was not part of the officially prescribed uniform, and that students were expected to follow uniform requirements during instructional hours. The students protested this restriction, stating that they had previously attended classes with the hijab and that the new enforcement amounted to an unjustified restriction of their rights.
The issue quickly spread to other colleges in Karnataka as similar conflicts arose. Tensions escalated when groups of Hindu students began wearing saffron shawls as a counter-protest, demanding equal treatment. This created a volatile atmosphere within the campuses, leading to heated arguments, media attention, and political involvement.
On 5 February 2022, the Government of Karnataka issued a formal Government Order (GO). The Order directed educational institutions to follow uniform rules prescribed by their respective College Development Committees (CDCs). If no uniform was prescribed, students were expected to wear clothing that promoted unity and did not disturb public order. Although the GO did not explicitly mention the hijab, it was interpreted by many colleges as authority to restrict religious attire inside classrooms.
This led to multiple writ petitions being filed before the Karnataka High Court, challenging the GO and the actions of the college authorities. Because of the widespread public interest and the constitutional questions involved, the Chief Justice constituted a Full Bench to hear the matter. The Court also passed an interim order directing students to refrain from wearing religious garments inside classrooms while the case was being heard, adding urgency to the final judgment.
- Issues Raised
The Court framed the following issues for determination:
- Whether wearing the hijab is an essential religious practice under Islam protected by Article 25 of the Constitution.
• Whether the Government Order dated 5 February 2022 infringes the petitioners’ fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), 21, and 25.
• Whether educational institutions possess the authority to prescribe a uniform and enforce compliance.
• Whether restricting the hijab inside classrooms violates freedom of expression, privacy, or personal autonomy.
• Whether the State acted arbitrarily or exceeded its powers in issuing the Government Order.
- Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Contentions
The petitioners argued that wearing the hijab is a part of Islamic faith and that Muslim women consider it a religious obligation. Therefore, it qualifies as an essential religious practice that falls under the protection of Article 25. They referred to passages from the Quran and religious commentaries. The petitioners further contended that the Government Order unfairly targeted a specific religious practice, effectively penalising Muslim students. As a result, the GO violated the equality guarantee under Article 14 and amounted to discrimination on religious grounds, contrary to Article 15.
The petitioners also argued that choosing to wear the hijab is an exercise of personal autonomy and privacy protected under Article 21. It was described as part of the student’s identity and sense of dignity. They also relied on Article 19(1)(a), claiming that the hijab is an expression of personal belief, which cannot be restricted without compelling justification. Lastly, they argued that educational institutions should adopt inclusive practices rather than limiting religious expression.
Respondents’ Contentions
The State argued that the hijab is not an essential religious practice. They pointed out that practices among Muslims vary widely across cultures, and Islamic texts do not impose a uniform obligation. The State contended that Article 25 does not protect every practice connected with religion, and only essential practices are safeguarded.
The respondents defended the Government Order as a neutral administrative directive. According to the State, the GO simply delegated authority to CDCs, which were legally empowered under the Karnataka Education Act to prescribe uniforms. Uniforms were described as necessary to ensure discipline, equality, and a focused academic atmosphere. The State argued that permitting religious variations within the uniform would undermine uniformity and lead to competing religious symbols within classrooms.
They further argued that the restriction applied only during classroom instruction hours and not elsewhere on campus, making it a limited and reasonable restriction. They denied that the government acted with discriminatory intent, stating that the GO applied equally to all students regardless of religion.
- Judgment and Final Decision
The Karnataka High Court upheld the Government Order and dismissed all the petitions. The Court held that the hijab is not an essential religious practice under Islam and is therefore not protected under Article 25. The Court also held that the Government Order was valid, legally sound, and within the authority of the State under the Karnataka Education Act.
The Court found that educational institutions are permitted to prescribe uniforms, and students must adhere to them. Since the restriction was limited to classrooms and served a legitimate purpose of promoting uniformity, it was considered reasonable. The Court concluded that there was no evidence to show that the State discriminated against Muslim students or acted arbitrarily.
As a result, the High Court confirmed that schools and colleges in Karnataka could enforce a uniform that did not allow the hijab inside classrooms.
- Legal Reasoning and Ratio Decidendi
Essential Religious Practices Test
A major portion of the judgment revolved around applying the essential religious practices test, developed in earlier Supreme Court cases such as the Shirur Mutt case and the Durgah Committee case. The Court examined Islamic scriptures and commentaries to determine whether the hijab was compulsory. It concluded that Islamic texts recommend modesty but do not make the hijab mandatory in a uniform and inflexible way. This led the Court to hold that wearing the hijab is not an essential religious practice.
Uniforms and Institutional Discipline
The Court emphasised the role of uniforms in promoting equality, discipline, and a secular learning environment. According to the Court, uniforms help remove visible markers of religion, socio-economic status, and personal differences, allowing students to focus on education. The Court found it reasonable for institutions to require adherence to uniform policies during instructional hours.
Government Order Analysis
The Court clarified that the Government Order did not impose any statewide ban on the hijab. Instead, it simply directed institutions to follow their CDC-prescribed uniforms. Since CDCs already had statutory authority to prescribe uniforms, the GO was found to be lawful and procedurally sound.
Article 19(1)(a)
The Court acknowledged that wearing the hijab may be an expressive act but stated that individual expression can be restricted in the interest of institutional discipline. As long as the restriction is reasonable and serves a legitimate purpose, it is permissible under Article 19(2).
Article 21
The Court rejected the argument that the uniform requirement violated privacy or autonomy. It noted that the restriction was narrow, limited to classrooms, and related to an institutional setting rather than personal life or private spaces.
Article 14
The Court held that the Government Order was facially neutral and did not discriminate against Muslim students. Equality, according to the Court, does not require institutions to accommodate every individual preference if doing so undermines the purpose of a uniform.
Ratio
The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that wearing the hijab is not an essential religious practice protected by Article 25 and that educational institutions may promulgate and enforce uniform rules that students must comply with.
- Conclusion and Observations
The Hijab Case remains one of the most significant constitutional cases of recent years. The judgment clarified the limits of religious freedom in school settings and affirmed the State’s authority to maintain discipline and uniformity within educational institutions. It also reinforced the essential religious practices test as a key tool in evaluating claims under Article 25.
The decision was later appealed to the Supreme Court, which delivered a split verdict in October 2022, demonstrating the complexity and divisiveness of the issues involved. Nevertheless, the Karnataka High Court’s reasoning continues to influence debates on secularism, identity, and the role of religion in public spaces.
