Editor's Pick: Supreme Court delivers split verdict on hijab ban

On Thursday, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the hijab case. The Court was unable to agree on whether Muslims girls should remove their hijabs before entering their school premises. The controversy began in Karnataka when eight girls, who wore the hijab to the Government PU College for Girls in Udipi in December 2021, were not allowed to enter the classroom. The students protested against the college for its decision. The Udupi BJP MLA, who heads the college department committee (CDC), told the students to follow the dress code. The students decided to stay away from class and filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court. Following this, a group of boys wore saffron scarves in protest against women wearing the hijab in other educational institutions. Subsequently, boys in saffron shawls and girls in hijab were all banned from the classroom. On February 5, the Karnataka government issued an order mandating that students must follow the rules in colleges where the CDC had prescribed uniforms. This set the ground for further protests across Karnataka. The Karnataka High Court upheld the government order after which a student approached the Supreme Court. To read a detailed ground report on the genesis and spread of the controversy, read this. On Thursday, Justice Hemant Gupta of the Supreme Court also upheld the Karnataka government’s prohibitive order, stating that “apparent symbols of religious belief cannot be worn to secular schools maintained from State funds”. He argued that secularity meant uniformity. Uniforms, he said, were a reasonable restriction to the freedom of expression. The decision to stay out of school was a “voluntary act” by the students. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, on the other hand, argued that secularism means a “tolerance to diversity” and that wearing or not wearing the hijab is a “matter of choice”. He said for some girls, “the hijab may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go to school”. While Justice Gupta stressed on discipline, Justice Dhulia argued that discipline cannot be at the cost of freedom or dignity. Stating that the Karnataka government’s order was seen as a majoritarian assertion in the garb of enforcing secular norms, in the prevailing political climate, this editorial said: “A verdict that legitimises this non-inclusive approach to education and a policy that may lead to denial of opportunity to Muslim women will not be in the country’s interest. Reasonable accommodation should be the course as long as the hijab or any wear, religious or otherwise, does not detract from the uniform.” As the case will be heard by a larger Bench now and involves issues such as secularism, privacy and dignity, and will also possibly determine the future of many girl students, it is the top pick of the day. Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Head over to our newsletter subscription page to sign up for Editor‘s Pick and more. Click here The Hindu’s Editorials Split over hijab: On the Supreme Court verdict In preparation: On the 36th National Games The Hindu’s Daily Quiz Which State is set to be the first to provide medical education in Hindi? New Delhi Uttarakhand Madhya Pradesh Uttar Pradesh To know the answer and to take the quiz, click here [logo] Editor's Pick 14 OCTOBER 2022 [The Hindu logo] In the Editor's Pick newsletter, The Hindu explains why a story was important enough to be carried on the front page of today's edition of our newspaper. [Arrow]( [Open in browser]( [Mail icon]( [More newsletters]( [Privacy Info]( Supreme Court delivers split verdict on hijab ban On Thursday, the Supreme Court delivered a [split verdict in the hijab case.]( The Court was unable to agree on whether Muslims girls should remove their hijabs before entering their school premises. The controversy began in Karnataka when eight girls, who wore the hijab to the Government PU College for Girls in Udipi in December 2021, were not allowed to enter the classroom. The students protested against the college for its decision. The Udupi BJP MLA, who heads the college department committee (CDC), told the students to follow the dress code. The students decided to stay away from class and filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court. Following this, a group of boys wore saffron scarves in protest against women wearing the hijab in other educational institutions. Subsequently, boys in saffron shawls and girls in hijab were all banned from the classroom. On February 5, the Karnataka government issued an order mandating that students must follow the rules in colleges where the CDC had prescribed uniforms. This set the ground for further protests across Karnataka. The Karnataka High Court upheld the government order after which a student approached the Supreme Court. To read a detailed ground report on the genesis and spread of the controversy, [read this](. On Thursday, Justice Hemant Gupta of the Supreme Court also upheld the Karnataka government’s prohibitive order, stating that “apparent symbols of religious belief cannot be worn to secular schools maintained from State funds”. He argued that secularity meant uniformity. Uniforms, he said, were a reasonable restriction to the freedom of expression. The decision to stay out of school was a “voluntary act” by the students. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, on the other hand, argued that secularism means a “tolerance to diversity” and that wearing or not wearing the hijab is a “matter of choice”. He said for some girls, “the hijab may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go to school”. While Justice Gupta stressed on discipline, Justice Dhulia argued that discipline cannot be at the cost of freedom or dignity. Stating that the Karnataka government’s order was seen as a majoritarian assertion in the garb of enforcing secular norms, in the prevailing political climate, [this editorial said]( “A verdict that legitimises this non-inclusive approach to education and a policy that may lead to denial of opportunity to Muslim women will not be in the country’s interest. Reasonable accommodation should be the course as long as the hijab or any wear, religious or otherwise, does not detract from the uniform.” As the case will be heard by a larger Bench now and involves issues such as secularism, privacy and dignity, and will also possibly determine the future of many girl students, it is the top pick of the day. Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Head over to our newsletter subscription page to sign up for Editor‘s Pick and more. [Click here]( The Hindu’s Editorials [Arrow][Split over hijab: On the Supreme Court verdict]( [Arrow][In preparation: On the 36th National Games]( The Hindu’s Daily Quiz Which State is set to be the first to provide medical education in Hindi? - New Delhi - Uttarakhand - Madhya Pradesh - Uttar Pradesh To know the answer and to take the quiz, [click here]( Today’s Best Reads [[Damaracherla’s waste heap has a toxic legacy, yet a new threat looms] Damaracherla’s waste heap has a toxic legacy, yet a new threat looms]( [[Congress presidential polls | Mallikarjun Kharge is a safe pair of hands for Congress, says Manish Tewari] Congress presidential polls | Mallikarjun Kharge is a safe pair of hands for Congress, says Manish Tewari]( [[Decoding AAP’s ideological conundrum] Decoding AAP’s ideological conundrum]( [[Bombay High Court acquits former DU professor G.N. Saibaba in Maoist links case] Bombay High Court acquits former DU professor G.N. Saibaba in Maoist links case]( Copyright @ 2022, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](