Hijab Ban 一 Rules & Regulation over Freedom 

The ongoing commotion in Karnataka over the donning of the hijab in educational institutions has revived the discussion about religious freedom. These are acknowledged human rights as well as legally granted fundamental rights. As a result, the hijab prohibition must be seen through the lens of International Human Rights Law. However a comprehensive examination of the hijab ban would cover a wide range of legal problems, including the definition of gender equality, secularism, the right to religion, cultural rights, and freedom of expression. 

One can seek to address three key questions here. To begin, is wearing a hijab or whatever kind of face/head covering protected under the International Human Rights Law? Second, does the right have any justifiable limitations? Third, does the hijab prohibition in Karnataka's universities and colleges, as well as the Karnataka high court's subsequent judgement, pass the International Human Rights Law test? 

Is the present hijab ban a violation of the right to freedom of religion as defined by international human rights law?

There is no uncertainty that prohibiting Muslim women from wearing headcovers/scarves at colleges is a violation of their right to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the International Human Rights Law. The only remaining question is whether or not the limitation is lawful. The Government PU College's determination to bar hijab-wearing students from entering the institution is discriminatory and hasty. It appears to be unsupported by any legislation or official authority, making it clearly unlawful.

Following that, as the hijab row grew in intensity and more colleges became embroiled in the debate, a government order was issued on February 5, 2022, which, in essence, empowered educational institutions to prohibit the hijab as component of a uniform dress code on the premises of unification, equality, and community cohesion.

Shockingly and unfortunately, the Karnataka High Court issued an interim ruling prohibiting all students from wearing religious attire in response to writ petitions brought by certain Muslim pupils. On the basis of public order, this ruling essentially prohibits the wearing of the hijab. The limitation, it claims, is equally applicable to saffron scarves and hijabs.

Interim Order passed by Karnataka High Court 一

What does the Order State?

The directive, however, is based on the flawed and deceptive premise that the saffron scarf and the hijab have the identical religious and cultural importance. Saffron cloth  was worn solely to create a political and exacerbate the situation; it is neither a deeply believed religious practice nor a component of the wearer's identity. As a result, when Hindu males were instructed to leave their religious apparel at the gate, they took off their saffron shawls and went to college, while Muslim women stayed at home. The Karnataka Government and the high court in its judgement cite the same grounds as France — equality, fraternity, and public order. And in International Human Rights Law, all three of these justifications are insufficient.

The prohibition of the hijab on the basis of equal opportunity is predicated on a flimsy and superficial interpretation of equality as the uniformity of all people. Even though the law's aim was equality, as previously stated, its impact is blatantly discriminatory towards both women and a religious minority. It discriminates against Muslim women significantly more than it does against men and women of other faiths, including Muslim males. Even in situations like S.A.S. v. In France, where the ban was upheld on other grounds, the concept of equality was rejected as a rationale to prohibit the burqa from being worn in public. 

Therefore, the Human Rights Council rejected the unity argument, which is similar to France's 'living together' assertion, on the premise that it is imprecise and not recognized by the Convention's exceptions. Article 25 of the constitution does not include the foundation of "unity." And it's not without cause. Otherwise, the term "unity" might be taken as uniformity that seeks to remove all diversity. By prohibiting the wearing of the hijab in educational institutions would become discriminatory environments. 

Lawyered’s Take 一

Well, this situation looks like the premise of public order is likewise false and devoid of evidence. Surprisingly, nude Sadhus are not regarded as a menace to public order, although fully clothed ladies are! As time goes on, it becomes evident that the prohibition, not the wearing of the hijab, is acting aggressively towards public order.

It's worth remembering that outlawing the burqa did not make France more harmonious or secular. On the flipside, it has deepened fragmentation in French society by increasing suspicion among the country's muslim minority.