The Hijab Issue Karnataka Ban, Court Rulings & Both Sides
Beginning in February 2022 in Udupi, Karnataka, the hijab controversy became a national debate on religious freedom, equality, dignity and free expression. This is a neutral, exam-ready explainer of the Karnataka High Court verdict, the Supreme Court's split judgment, the key precedents, and the arguments on both sides.
The hijab controversy began in February 2022, when a government pre-university college in Udupi, Karnataka barred the hijab inside classrooms. It sparked widespread protests, with many students — mostly girls — defending their right to wear the hijab in school. The government order was challenged in the Karnataka High Court, which upheld it. Later, the Supreme Court delivered a split decision, which means a larger bench will have to decide the case.
In India, the controversy — especially after the 2022 Karnataka hijab ban — sparked a national debate touching the Right to Equality, Right to Dignity, Freedom of Speech and Expression, and Freedom of Religion.
What is the Hijab Issue?
A hijab is a headscarf used by Muslim women to cover their heads. The concept of a head covering is not unique to Islam and is shared by other religions such as Judaism and Christianity.
- The issue: after six students were barred from entering a college in Udupi in 2022 for wearing a hijab, the debate over whether educational institutions can impose a strict dress code that may infringe on students' rights spread to other parts of the country.
- It raised legal questions on how to interpret religious freedom and whether the right to wear a hijab is constitutionally protected.
- The college administration said it was following Karnataka government guidelines to ensure uniformity among students.
Karnataka High Court Decision (March 2022)
In March 2022, the Karnataka High Court ruled that wearing the hijab is not mandatory in Islam and upheld the executive order. Citing the hijab as not part of an "Essential Religious Practice," it held that the ban did not violate the right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19), as it was a reasonable restriction to maintain discipline in public spaces.
Supreme Court Judgment (October 2022)
In the Karnataka Hijab Ban appeal — Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka — a two-judge Supreme Court bench delivered a split verdict in October 2022.
Upholding the Ban — Justice Hemant Gupta
- The Karnataka government was within its rights to prohibit the hijab in educational institutions.
- The State's policy promoted intercommunal harmony.
- Allowing the hijab in a secular setting could create feelings of inequality among students.
- Adherence to a uniform is a reasonable restriction on free expression; a student cannot claim a right to wear a headscarf in a secular school.
Against the Ban — Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
- Education of the girl child is a matter of preference; the ban violates rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21.
- Wearing a hijab in school is a "choice" and a fundamental right tied to the girl's "dignity and privacy even inside the school gates."
- The ban could cause students to drop out or transfer, harming their education.
Because of the split verdict, both judges recommended placing the matter before a larger bench. In January 2024, the Supreme Court indicated it would consider constituting a three-judge bench. Pending a final decision, the Karnataka High Court verdict continues to hold the field. The onus is on the Chief Justice of India to assign the case to a larger bench.
Article 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion — subject to public order, morality, health); Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression, with reasonable restrictions under 19(2)); Article 21 (right to life, dignity and privacy); and Articles 14 & 15 (equality and non-discrimination). The case sits at the intersection of all of these.
Other Judgments on the Hijab Issue
| Case / Year | What the Court Held |
|---|---|
| Kerala HC (2015) | Directed the CBSE to implement additional measures for students wishing to wear religiously appropriate dress that violates the dress code — stressing that religious feelings should not be hurt and discipline should not be jeopardised. |
| Amna Bint Basheer v. CBSE (2016) | Recognised wearing a hijab as an essential religious practice, but did not overturn the CBSE rule; permitted "additional measures" and safeguards to protect sentiments while maintaining exam integrity. |
| Fathima Tasneem v. State of Kerala (2018) | Held that the collective rights of an institution should take precedence over the petitioner's individual rights. |
The ERP doctrine originates from the Shirur Mutt case (1954), under which courts decide whether a practice is "essential" to a religion and therefore protected under Article 25. Critics argue that determining the essentiality of a practice is a theological question that courts — rather than religious denominations — may not be institutionally competent to answer. A useful precedent is Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), where the Supreme Court upheld the right of Jehovah's Witnesses students who declined to sing the National Anthem on religious grounds (Articles 19(1)(a) and 25).
Different Views on the Hijab Issue
The issue has drawn a wide range of perspectives on religious freedom, cultural identity, education and societal values. Both sets of arguments are presented below as advanced by their respective proponents.
Arguments For the Ban
- Against secularism: a uniform is an equaliser; religious symbols should not influence public spaces like schools.
- Educational values: allowing defiance of dress rules could undermine discipline.
- No absolute right: the right to religion is not absolute and cannot override other rights, especially in government-funded institutions.
- Not ERP: the Karnataka HC held the hijab is not an Essential Religious Practice.
- Right to equality: a common rule for all upholds equality by not creating different rules for different groups.
Arguments Against the Ban
- Religious freedom: petitioners argue the hijab is a religious duty under Article 25, distinct from practices like triple talaq.
- Dignity (Art. 21): the right to dress as one pleases is part of the Right to Dignity; restrictions need a reasonable basis.
- Access to education: for some conservative families, the hijab enables the girl child to attend school; per NFHS-5, Muslim girls' school attendance (6–17) lagged in most states except Kerala.
- Not harmful: per Justice Dhulia, a sincere belief that harms no one has no justifiable reason to be barred.
- ERP critique: courts, not denominations, deciding "essentiality" is contested.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the hijab issue and when did it start?
What did the Karnataka High Court rule?
What was the Supreme Court's verdict in the hijab case?
Is wearing a hijab a fundamental right in India?
What is the Essential Religious Practices doctrine?
What is the current status of the hijab case?
A high-scoring answer stays balanced and constitutional — map the competing rights (Article 25 vs Articles 19/14/21), explain the ERP doctrine and its critique, cite the High Court and split Supreme Court verdicts neutrally, and conclude on the need for a reasoned larger-bench resolution rather than taking a personal side.
The hijab case is not a contest between religion and the Constitution — it is a contest between two constitutional values, freedom of religion and the equalising force of a common public order. The exam rewards the candidate who can hold both in tension and reason fairly, not the one who picks a side. — Legacy IAS Faculty
Key Takeaways
- The controversy began in Feb 2022 in Udupi, Karnataka, over a classroom hijab ban justified by school-uniform rules.
- The Karnataka High Court (March 2022) held the hijab is not an Essential Religious Practice and upheld the ban as a reasonable restriction.
- The Supreme Court (Oct 2022, Aishat Shifa) split: Justice Gupta upheld the ban; Justice Dhulia struck it down — referring it toward a larger bench.
- The case turns on Article 25 vs Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 14, and on the contested ERP doctrine (Shirur Mutt, 1954).
- Related rulings — Amna Bint Basheer (2016) and Fathima Tasneem (2018) — and the precedent of Bijoe Emmanuel (1986) inform the debate.
- The matter remains legally unsettled, pending a larger bench; the Karnataka HC verdict holds the field.
