https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0921-7236
![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In October 2022, a two-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on constitutional challenges to the “hijab ban” imposed in some educational institutions in the State of Karnataka. This case note identifies gaps in the manner in which three central constitutional claims, namely, religious freedom, privacy and freedom of speech and expression, and discrimination, were engaged with in this case. The note argues that while both judges’ opinions on the inapplicability of the essential religious practices test are questionable, its application does not conclusively determine the constitutionality of the ban. It also argues that the Court should have subjected the hijab ban to a structured proportionality analysis to investigate if the ban violates the rights to privacy, and freedom of speech and expression. Finally, the note argues that claims of indirect discrimination are central to this case and demanded serious engagement by the bench.
Acknowledgment
I thank John Sebastian and the anonymous peer reviewer for their valuable and detailed feedback on this note. I have also benefited greatly from the insightful work of and discussions with my co-authors in ‘Prohibiting Hijab in Educational Institutions: A Constitutional Assessment’ (2022), who are Farrah Ahmed, Mohsin Alam Bhat, Aparna Chandra, Raunaq Jaiswal, Gauri Pillai, Rishika Sahgal, and Anup Surendranath. I thank Dinesha Samararatne, Amber Darr, Shardool Kulkarni and Vandita Khanna from the ILR editorial team for their painstaking engagement with the note. Many thanks also to Aishwarya R and Mohammed Afeef for useful discussions. I am grateful to Melbourne Research Scholarship for supporting my research. All errors are mine alone.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Aishat Shifa v State of Karnataka 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1394.
2 Resham v State of Karnataka 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 315.
3 ’Students Denied Entry to Class for Wearing Hijab’ Hindustan Times (3 January 2022) <https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/students-denied-entry-to-class-for-wearing-hijab−101,641,149,967,868html> accessed 8 September 2023.
4 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [14].
5 Kiran Parashar and Liz Mathew, ‘Hijab Protests Spread, Karnataka Govt Shuts Colleges, High Schools for Three Days’ The Indian Express (9 February 2022) <https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/bangalore/karnataka-hijab-ban-row-protests−7,763,006/> accessed 8 September 2023.
6 ’Karnataka: Head covering banned in job exams, hijab allowed with a rider’ The Indian Express (15 November 2023) <https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/bangalore/head-coverings-banned-for-karnataka-run-boards-corporations-recruitment-exams−9,026,904/> accessed 4 December 2023; ‘Karnataka to allow wearing hijab in recruitment exams’ Scroll.in (22 October 2023) <https://scroll.in/latest/1057956/karnataka-to-allow-wearing-hijab-in-recruitment-exams> accessed 5 December 2023.
7 People’s Union for Civil Liberties – Karnataka, ‘Closing the Gates to Education: Violations of Rights of Muslim women students in Karnataka’ (4 February 2023); Rakhi Bose, ‘Hijab Ban and Muslim Women’s Right to Education: “Reform Needed, not Coercion”’ Outlook (25 January 2023) <https://www.outlookindia.com/national/hijab-ban-and-muslim-women-right-to-education-reform-needed-not-coercion-news−228,667> accessed 5 September 2023.
8 Recent news reports highlight that the new government in Karnataka is “contemplating” on withdrawing the hijab ban. See ‘Hijab ban withdrawal: We are only “contemplating” such a move, says Siddaramaiah’ The Hindu (23 December 2023) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/government-is-still-considering-withdrawal-of-ban-on-hijab-says-siddaramaiah/article67668799.ece> accessed 17 January 2024.
9 The term ‘secular’ was added to the Preamble through the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act 1976, s 2.
10 Other constitutional provisions include the right to equality under art 14, prohibition of discrimination against persons on the basis of their religion under art 15(1), right of religious denominations to manage their affairs in matters of religion under art 26(b), prohibition of religious instruction in educational institutions wholly maintained by State funds under art 28(1), and the right of religious minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under art 30.
11 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [176].
12 SR Bommai v Union of India 1994 3 SCC 1.
13 For instance, art 25(2)(b) of the Constitution lays down that the right freedom of religion and conscience under art 25 will not prevent the state from enacting laws providing for (i) social welfare and reform; or (ii) throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. art 17 of the Constitution expressly abolishes the caste-based practice of untouchability and makes it a punishable offence.
14 Constitution of India 1950, art 51A makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen to ‘value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture’.
15 Tehseen Poonawalla v Union of India (2018) 9 SCC 501.
16 Constitution of India 1950, art 25, explanation I.
17 Rajeev Bhargava, ‘The Distinctiveness of Indian Secularism’ (2007) 35 Critique Internationale 121; Farrah Ahmed and others, ‘Prohibiting Hijab in Educational Institutions: A Constitutional Assessment’ (2022) 58 <https://www.livelaw.in/prohibiting-hijab-in-educational-institutions-a-constitutional-assessment> accessed 8 September 2023.
18 Bommai (n 12); M Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1440.
19 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [3], [11].
20 ibid [206]–[208].
21 ibid [206].
22 ’Written Submission on Behalf of Petitioner Aishat Shifa’ (Supreme Court Observer) <https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Petition-for-Aisat-Shifa.pdf> accessed 8 September 2023.
23 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [296]–[298].
24 ibid [294].
25 ibid [299]–[300].
26 ibid [312].
27 Durgah Committee v Syed Hussain Ali 1962 1 SCR 383.
28 Gautam Bhatia, ‘Freedom from Community: Individual Rights, Group Life, State Authority and Religious Freedom under the Indian Constitution’ [2016] 5 Global Constitutionalism 351, 364–365.
29 ibid.
30 Ahmed and others (n 17) 50.
31 Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabaramila Temple Review) v Indian Young Lawyers Association (2019) SCC Online SC 1461.
32 Resham (n 2) [14]–[31].
33 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [100]–[106], [134].
34 ibid [134].
35 Arguments have been made that these fundamental rights may also have horizontal application, but there is little doubt about their application to the state. See Stephen Gardbaum, ‘Horizontal Effect’ in Sujit Choudhry, Madhav Khosla and Pratap Bhanu Mehta (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution (OUP 2016) 600.
36 The Constitution of India 1950, art 28. In fact, art 30(2) of the Constitution even permits state aid to schools imparting religious instruction. See generally Rajeev Bhargava, ‘Secular State and Religious Education: The Debate in India’ in Jyotirmaya Sharma and A Raghuramaraju (eds), Grounding Morality: Freedom, Knowledge, and the Plurality of Cultures (Routledge 2010) 248.
37 See State of Kerala v NM Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310 [31]; Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217 [146].
38 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [94].
39 The Constitution of India 1950, arts 30, 15 (4), 15 (5), and 16(4).
40 Joseph Shine v Union of India (2018) SCC OnLine SC 1676 [171]–[172] (Chandrachud J).
41 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [235]–[236].
42 ibid [247].
43 Karthik Kalra, ‘Ends over Means – On Dhulia J’.s Circumvention of the Essential Religious Practices Test in the Hijab Case’ (Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy Blog, 17 October 2022) <https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2022/10/17/guest-post-ends-over-means-on-dhulia-j-s-circumvention-of-the-essential-religious-practices-test-in-the-hijab-case/> accessed 8 September 2023.
44 Mohd Hanif Qureshi v State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731.
45 Ismail Faruqui v Union of India 1994 SCC (6) 360.
46 Javed v State of Haryana (2003) 8 SCC 369.
47 Acharya Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta v Commissioner of Police (1983) 4 SCC 522.
48 Kalra (n 43).
49 See Hanif Qureshi (n 44) which also involved a claim of violation of the right to trade, profession and business under art 19(1)(g). Further, the performance of the tandava dance and the practice of praying in mosques can also be argued to constitute ‘expressions’ protected under art 19(1)(a).
50 Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615.
51 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [253].
52 ibid [269].
53 ibid [125].
54 Bijoe Emmanuel (n 50) [13]–[14].
55 Bijoe Emmanuel (n 50) [21]–[25].
56 Emily Kathryn Tubb, ‘Sincerity, Subjectivity & Religion: The Evolution of RFRA from a Constitutional Shield to a Political Sword’ (2023) 75 Oklahoma Law Review 319, 321–322.
57 Durgah Committee (n 27); Avadhuta (n 47).
58 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [135].
59 ’Written Submission on Behalf of Petitioner Aishat Shifa’ (n 22).
60 Resham (n 2) [38].
61 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [148]–[155].
62 Nidhi Agrawal and Sukarm Sharma, ‘The Hijab Case – Justice Gupta and the (Mis)Interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution’ (Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy Blog, 25 October 2022) <https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2022/10/25/guest-post-the-hijab-case-justice-gupta-and-the-misinterpretation-of-article-191a-of-the-constitution/> accessed 8 September 2023.
63 Bennett Coleman v Union of India 1972 2 SCC 788.
64 The Constitution of India 1950, art 19(2). Notably, the Order mentioned that it was issued ‘in the interests of unity, equality and public order’.
65 Kaushal Kishor v State of UP 2023 SCC OnLine SC 6 [50].
66 KS Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
67 Aparna Chandra, ‘Proportionality in India: A Bridge to Nowhere?’ (2020) 3(2) Oxford Human Rights Hub Journal 55.
68 See Section 2.2 of the case note.
69 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [270]–[274].
70 ibid [291].
71 Puttaswamy (n 66) [297] (Chandrachud J).
72 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [14].
73 Ahmed and others (n 17) 38–47.
74 ’Written Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner Women’s Voice’ (Centre for Law and Policy Research) <https://clpr.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Womens-Voice-Hijab-SLP-Written-Submissions.pdf> accessed 7 September 2023.
75 Lt Col Nitisha v Union of India 2021 SCC OnLine SC 261 [61] (Chandrachud J).
76 ibid [82]–[86] (Chandrachud J).
77 Resham (n 2) [38].
78 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [14]; Ahmed and others (n 17) 18–26.
79 Niranjan Kaggere, ‘HC Interim Order Not Applicable on Turban-Wearing Students: BC Nagesh’ Deccan Herald (24 February 2022) <https://www.deccanherald.com/state/top-karnataka-stories/hc-interim-order-not-applicable-on-turban-wearing-students-bc-nagesh−1,084,863html> accessed 22 December 2023.
80 Vignesh Radhakrishnan and Rebecca Rose Varghese, ‘Data | Hijab Row: Why the Ban Is a Double Blow to Muslim Girl Students’ The Hindu <https://www.thehindu.com/data/data-hijab-row-why-the-ban-is-a-double-blow-for-muslim-girl-students/article65066546.ece> accessed 8 September 2023.
81 People’s Union for Civil Liberties – Karnataka (n 7).
82 Gautam Bhatia, ‘Discipline or Freedom: The Supreme Court’s Split Verdict in the Hijab Case’ (Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy, 13 October 2022) <https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2022/10/13/discipline-or-freedom-the-supreme-courts-split-verdict-in-the-hijab-case/> accessed 8 September 2023.
83 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [60].
84 Cecile Laborde, ‘Minimal Secularism: Lessons for, and from, India’ (2021) 115 American Political Science Review 1, 10.
85 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [131]–[132]. Gupta J. quotes the Punjab High Court judgement in Gurleen Kaur v State of Punjab 2009 SCC OnLine P&H 6132, which held that the “wearing hair unshorn” is also an ERP within the Sikhism and is even more essential than carrying the Sikh kirpan which is constitutionally protected under Explanation I of art 25.
86 See generally Tarunabh Khaitan, A Theory of Discrimination Law (OUP 2015) 71, 73.
87 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [134].
88 Aishat Shifa (n 1) [309]–[310].
89 ibid [212].