While issuing the order of the partial stay, the bench slammed the authorities of the private college established in the year 2008, by stating that women must have freedom of choice in what they are wearing and college cannot force them. Coming to the argument of empowering women by banning hijab, naqab, and burqa, the bench had commented “How are you empowering women by telling them what to wear?”

The bench had also remarked why the college did not ban ’tilak’ and ‘bindi’ if it intended the religious faiths of the students to not be revealed. It had further asked if the religion and religious identity of the student would not be revealed by their name.

It is to be noted that pursuant to the interim order of the Supreme Court, Chembur’s Acharya Marathe College has complied with the orders by temporarily removing the ban on hijabs while continued to prohibit the niqab and burqa, the face covering and full-body veil respectively, in keeping with the said decision.

Background of the case:

The petitioners in the present case, pursuing their second and third-year undergraduate courses, had moved the Bombay High Court first by challenging the dress code on the ground that restriction on hijab, nakab, burqa, stole, caps etc. in the campus violates their fundamental rights. Under the impugned dress code, the dress of the students is expected to be formal and decent and should not reveal the religion of any student.

The students contend that the dress code is arbitrary and discriminatory, infringing upon their right to choose their attire, right to privacy, right to expression under Article 19(1)(a) and right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.

They argue that the college’s actions are discriminatory and violate the principles of equity and inclusiveness mandated by the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, UGC guidelines, RUSA guidelines, and the National Education Policy (NEP). According to the petition, the college’s actions intend to exclude the petitioners from pursuing higher education and discriminate against them compared to other students, akin to denying them admission.

It is essential to note on June 26, 2024, the division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S Patil had delivered a judgment on the said case by observing that the dress code prohibiting students from wearing hijab, nakab, burqa, stole and cap on the campus is in the student’s larger academic interest. The court had referred to the case of Miss Fathema Hussain, a minor v. Bharat Education society and Ors., where in the Bombay High Court in 2003 held that, merely asking the students to maintain the dress code by not wearing a hijab does not violate the students’ fundamental right of freedom of conscience and free profession. In the said judgment, the court had even gone on to say that regulation of a dress code is an exercise towards maintaining discipline at the Institution, and this right flows from Article 19(1) (g) and Article 26 of the Constitution of India. (A detailed analysis of the case, the arguments presented and the judgment of the HC can be read here, here and here respectively.)\

It is crucial to be highlighted here that while the Bombay High Court had cited previous rulings where dress codes were upheld. However, these cases involved schools and uniforms. A dress code is different from a uniform. In this case, what the court has failed to take note of is that, the dress code is disproportionately affecting only female Muslim students of the college.

Details of the hearings:

During the hearing, the bench comprising Justices Khanna and Kumar scrutinized a college’s notification that prohibited students from wearing hijabs, caps, or badges on campus. Expressing astonishment at the rule, Justice Khanna questioned its intent, stating, “Why enforce such a regulation that hides one’s religion?”

As per LiveLaw, Justice Kumar further critiqued, “Names themselves can indicate religious identity. Will students now be assigned numbers to avoid this?”

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing Acharya Marathe College, faced the bench’s scepticism. Justice Kumar lamented, “It’s disheartening that after decades of independence, such directives emerge… suddenly emphasising religion.”

Justice Khanna probed further, asking if traditional marks like a “tilak” would also be banned. Divan responded to the same by stating that out of 441 Muslim female students, only a few objected with most attending without issues. To this, Justice Khanna emphasised the importance of unity in education, remarking, “They must study together.”

As per a report in the LiveLaw, when it was brought to the notice of the Court that the three petitioning students had transferred to another institution and that hijabs weren’t traditionally worn in the college, Justice Khanna expressed regret, “That’s unfortunate… How does dictating attire empower women?” Justice Kumar echoed this sentiment, querying, “Shouldn’t the choice of clothing rest with the individual girl?”

Justice Khanna also underscored the societal pressures students might face, suggesting, “Authorities should recognize that family expectations might compel students to wear certain attire.” He then added, “Don’t force them out of the college. We’ll suspend the circular… Quality education is the remedy to many such issues.”

While Divan argued against a broad suspension, citing that face-covering veils like niqabs or burqas hinder interaction, the bench concurred, allowing the college to maintain its restriction on face coverings in the form of niqabs and burqa in class.

Order of the Court:

The court issued a notice on the petition, set to be revisited in the week starting November 18, 2024. The order included a caveat ensuring the suspension of the clause 2 of the circular, which banned hijab, cap or badge is not exploited, and it permitted the college to request modifications should any misuse arise.

“In the meanwhile, we partly stay clause 2 of the impugned circular to the extent it directs that no Hijab, Cap or Badge will be worn. We hope and trust that the said interim order will not be misused by anybody. It will be open to the respondents to move an application for vacation of this order, in case of misuse.”

The complete order can be read here:

Related:

Quoting Tagore, the Madras High Court flags misuse of preventive detention laws to censor critical social media posts

Telangana High Court affirms right of Akbhari Shia Women to conduct religious activities in Hyderabad’s Ibadat Khana

Redefining Indian Tradition Minus Christianity & Islam is Intellectual Dishonesty

The post “How does dictating attire empower women?” Supreme Court partially stays Mumbai College’s Hijab Ban appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The incident took place on February 17 in Government High School Number 2 at Jodhpur’s Peepar. In a video released by Maktoob Media, students from the school can be seen stating that they have even been threatened by the school teachers and have faced severe conditions saying that they are “threatened and tortured every day”. ‘They threaten us that they will not give us marks.’ Students asserted their class teacher, a teacher named Priyanka, had made these statements in the school.

After the incident, parents of the students arrived at the school and spoke to the administration and asked for an explanation why their children were turned away. The parents of the schoolgirls claimed that teachers had behaved improperly towards the students. The parents also reportedly stated, “It is very unethical that you are threatening students of reducing their marks if they continue to wear hijab.”

However, the school principal asserted that the students were barred from school due to a violation of the dress code.

Meanwhile, the social media site X is filled with posts that are designating the parents of the students as ‘radicals.’ A video is making the rounds on social media where presumably the parents of the students are speaking to the police, seemingly agitated that the students are thrown out of school. Many seemingly anonymous accounts have shared the video on the website stating the parents are ‘threatening the school with violence’, or as ‘radicals’.

In a daring show of respect for secularism:#watch muslim parents threaten school administration with violence if their daughters are not allowed to attend school in Hijab

This is the power of Pasmandas in New Bharat.

Reportedly, from BJP ruled #Rajasthan. pic.twitter.com/aVFkqTftVE

— Ritu #जिष्णु (@RituRathaur) February 18, 2024

Some radicals are coming to the schools of Rajasthan & threatening the school administration that their children will come only in hijab, if school administration stops them they will punish the school administration pic.twitter.com/9IE1YegAQc

— Frontalforce (@FrontalForce) February 18, 2024

As anti-Muslim sentiment continues to be shared in schools with the hijab issue, BJP MLA Balmukund Acharya  visited Government Senior Secondary Girls School in the state during Republic Day celebrations on January 26 where videos from the event captured him stating that hijabs should not be allowed in schools. Going further, he took to the school’s stage and chanted slogans like “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” and “Saraswati Mata Ki Jai,”  and asked in a taunting manner, ‘whether some girls not chanting it were ‘asked not to.’

Following the incident, Muslim students reportedly filed a complaint at the police station an even organised a protest on the basis that Acharya’s statements disrupted the school atmosphere and demanding an apology. Similarly, BJP minister Kirori Lal Meena has chimed in and stated that, “Hijab is a symbol of slavery brought in by the Mughals.” He has detailed that he will talk to CM Bhajan Lal Sharma regarding the implementation of a ban on hijab. The demand for a dress code in schools been has found support by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad as well who are actively supporting it.

Related:

Rajasthan to implement hijab ban?

Muslim student denied to sit for UGC-NET due to hijab

1000s or hundreds of thousands, the Karnataka govt’s ill-motivated ‘Hijab ban’ has pushed Muslim girls out of school

Removing Hijab ban is a step forward, for gender justice & pluralism

The post Rajasthan: Muslim students barred from school, called ‘Chambal ke Daaku’ for wearing hijab appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to a report by Maktoob Media, Muslims students went and made a complaint at the police station after the incident stating that the MLA was spoiling the school atmosphere and that he must apologise for his statements. Following this incident, it was also reported by Maktoob Media, that scores of Muslim girl students from the Government Senior Secondary Girls School, Gangapol protested against the Acharya’s statements.

Similarly, reports have arrived of a committee drafting a detailed report on implementing a hijab ban in Rajasthan. The state’s education minister Madan Dilawar has unveiled plans to rigorously enforce a dress code for all students in government schools throughout the state.

A student stated, according to a report by The Wire, “What does he have to do to what we wear? We are coming here to study and we will study. We will not stop our protest till the Baba doesn’t apologise. He always targets Muslims, sometimes over meat, shops run by Muslims, now over hijab. Today he wants to end hijab in school, tomorrow he may stop us from wearing hijab in school. Muslim students at the school are being targeted. Wearing hijab is our right,” one of the protesting students told reporters on Monday.

Meanwhile, according to the report, Acharya is previously dealing with a case against him where he is accused of spitting on and assaulting a member from the Scheduled Caste community in Rajasthan.

Meanwhile, BJP minister Kirori Lal Meena tuned in by saying that the “hijab is a symbol of slavery brought in by the Mughals, and that he will talk to CM Bhajan Lal Sharma regarding the implementation of a ban on hijab. The demand for a dress code in schools been supported from the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, who has talked about the need for “discipline and equality” among students.  Interestingly, in the midst of the din about hijab, The Mooknayak has reported about a girl named Tanjim Merani has launched a hunger strike in CM Bhajan Lal Sharma’s constituency against the wearing of hijab in educational settings. Her strike has so far received a 5 -day permission to be conducted at VT Ground.

However, hijab ban in India seems to be an attempt at stigmatising religious practices of Muslims. Muslim women have been prevented from accessing educational opportunities due to discrimination based on the wearing of hijab. Similarly, the hijab ban in government institutions was implemented in Karnataka by the then BJP government in the state. The ban saw widespread protests by Muslim students who argued that it was their fundamental right. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court who delivered a split verdict and referred to a larger bench for the matter. According to a survey by PUCL, the hijab ban led to over a 1000 Muslim women dropping out of educational institutes. The hijab ban has been unanimously protested in India. However, in countries such as Iran where it has been imposed as compulsory, women have opposed it stringently and the country has seen wide scale protests and disruptions by feminists and allies over the past few years.

Related:

UP court awards land with Muslim shrine and graveyard to petitioners claiming it to be a Mahabharata site

Muslim student denied to sit for UGC-NET due to hijab

1000s or hundreds of thousands, the Karnataka govt’s ill-motivated ‘Hijab ban’ has pushed Muslim girls out of school

Removing Hijab ban is a step forward, for gender justice & pluralism

The post Rajasthan to implement hijab ban? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Eligibility Test (NET) is an examination conducted by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the National Testing Agency (NTA) for granting eligibility for the lecturers and research fellows at Indian colleges and universities.

Speaking to Maktoob, Yusuf claims to have arrived on time and well-prepared for the examination and furthermore, that she followed all UGC rules and guidelines. However, she alleges that teachers and supervisors at the centre denied her the opportunity to take the test, insisting that she remove her hijab, a religious headscarf worn by Muslim women.

Speaking to Maktoob, Yusuf stated that she had thoroughly reviewed the UGC’s website and the instructions on her admit card before reaching the examination centre and pointed out that nowhere did it state that observing hijab during the examination is prohibited, and instead there are instructions that those who wear religious headgear need to come early to the examination centre, “Nowhere does it state that observing hijab during the examination is prohibited. However, it did specify that individuals wearing religious markers/attire should arrive early for a comprehensive screening and checking process.”

Yusuf says that she was granted entry after being checked by a female guard, but however, a male teacher arrived and told her to remove the hijab before taking the test. According to the report, the male teacher was an official from the National Testing Agency (NTA). Yusuf said she tried to reason out and state the existing provisions for students with similar concerns in the guidelines, but she was not heard of. According to Maktoob, “I even tried to convince the officer, providing an example of how passport offices allow wearing hijab, even with screened ears for biometrics. However, he didn’t listen. I faced the dilemma of choosing between my religion and academic setback, and I opted for my faith over potential academic loss.” Yusuf further states that nobody was removed from the examination centre for a turban and believes that she was targeted due to her religion.

This is not the first instance of Muslim women students being denied entry to examination centres and classrooms for wearing the hijab. In 2018, the Delhi Minorities Commission (DMC) issued a notice to the University Grants Commission asking for an explanation after a student wearing a hijab was similarly denied the opportunity to write the UGC-NET exam. Similarly, on a much larger scale, women school students in Karnataka from the Muslim community were denied the right to enter schools because they wore the hijab in 2021. According to a report by Sabrang India, this incident led to about 1,010 hijab-wearing girls to discontinue their education in pre-university colleges in Karnataka, The timing of the ban had also coincided with final examinations which further worsened the situation for these students. These instances of discrimination thus fall into a pattern of the challenges faced by the Muslim minority. For instance, it was noted this year that there was a staggering 8% decline in the enrolment of Muslim students in higher education, which led to a decrease in 1,79,147 students.

 Related:

AISHE survey shows enrolment of Muslim students in higher studies falls significantly compared to other communities

MOE: Alarming dropout rates among SC, ST, and OBC students in premium institutes of India since 2018

Does the State have the right to disrupt Muslim woman’s right to education?

1000s or hundreds of thousands, the Karnataka govt’s ill-motivated ‘Hijab ban’ has pushed Muslim girls out of school

The post Muslim student denied to sit for UGC-NET due to hijab appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We have all heard about “love jihad”, a sinister narrative designed by the Hindu Right which argues that Muslim men are on a mission to convert Hindu girls by various means. The allegation is that Muslim men pose as Hindus initially and once they get married to Hindu girls, they pressurize them to convert to Islam.

This story of using love as a tool of conversion was initially told by some churches in Kerala but it gained considerable traction in North India. Various state governments enacted stricter laws to “safeguard” Hindu women from falling into the trap of Muslim men. All such advertised cases though turned out to be completely false. Hindu women came on camera to state that they had married and converted out of their own will; that there was no luring or force involved in the process.

It does not help that the Muslim religion insists on conversion if one of the spouses is from any religion other than that of Ahl-e-Kitab, People of The Book. Normally, the Hindu religion too should be included in the list of Ahl-e-Kitab, but Muslim clerics’ sense of superiority over other religions keeps them from following the Holy Quran. They include only Christianity and Judaism in this list, although Quran said there are no people on earth who were not sent prophets and no prophets who were not given revelations. It’s these revelations that constitute Books when they are collected. There is no debate about the necessity of insisting on this practice of converting to Islam any spouse other than from Ahl-e-Kitab within the Muslim community even after so many centuries.

Through the social media, we have been made aware that now there is a “reverse love-jihad” going on in our country. Called the “Bhagwa/Saffron love-trap”, the basic parameters of its definition is a carbon copy of “love-jihad”. It refers to Hindu boys posing as Muslims in order to lure Muslim girls and ultimately convert them to Hinduism. Over some years, this fear of loosing girls to the “other side” is gaining traction. We have seen that love jihad was a bogey, designed to defame the Muslim community. But what is the veracity of “Bhagwa love trap?” It appears that even in this case, there is hardly any reliable data to ascertain the claims that the Muslim side is making.

It is true that certain Hindu organizations from time to time have been speaking in public about “claiming” Muslim girls as if these girls are not human but property. From the portals of various Dharam Sansads, we have heard things about Muslim girls which should put any democracy to shame. At the same time, they also instill a certain fear within the Muslim community regarding their future in this country. Added to this is the huge reluctance on the part of the ruling establishment to prosecute those who are indulging in such vicious propaganda with the express intention of de-humanizing the Muslim community. We have seen this depravity and loss of a moral compass when some Hindu youth decided to “auction” Muslim girls online. Despite claims of belonging to the lofty ideals of Sanatan tradition, it is clear that for some of these Hindu organizations, the model of emulation has remained the Islamic State, who were selling and buying female slaves in Syria.

Such Hindu right-wing rhetoric of converting Muslim girls might have some willing executioners but is it true that there is grand conspiracy behind this? The Muslim social media is rife with such allegations, blaming the other side (read Hindus) for planning to divest their Muslim sisters of their revealed religion. However, after watching many such posts, one does not get to know the source of this information. Neither is there any way to verify the claim that “thousands of Muslim girls have already been converted” by organized gangs of Hindus. All such videos refer to some of the speeches that have been made by “our religious leaders.” Therefore, in all probability, the source of such information are the speeches of various Ulama. 

One such video is that of Sajjad Nomani, the spokesman of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board and an influential religious scholar. In this video, he makes certain startling claims, but doesn’t care to tell us what is his source of information. Some of the claims that he makes are:

–        Eight lakh Muslim women have become apostates after marrying Hindu men

–        RSS has created and trained a large team of Hindu men and women for this purpose

–        To achieve this end, Hindu men are put into training where they learn to speak refined Urdu and even say Inshallah and Mashallah

–        Each “successful” Hindu man is given 2.5 lakhs and is helped in getting a job, etc.

–        This is a big conspiracy against Muslims and Islam and billions of dollars are being pumped from abroad and within the country for this purpose.

However, to repeat, Nomani does not cite a single source to back his claim. Perhaps he thinks that there is no need of doing so. After all, his followers have been lapping up the allegations made in the video and presenting it as sacred truth. It appears that the source of all such feeds flooding the Muslim social media is the video of Sajjad Nomani itself. One is certainly not saying that everything that Sajjad Nomani is saying is bogus. However, not citing any source for his claims amounts to fear mongering. At a time when Muslims are already in a beleaguered state, instilling more fear and insecurity in them is a recipe for social strife. 

But let us suppose that all such claims are true. Then what should be the Muslim response to it? The best response which any enlightened community would take is to better educate their girls so that they have the capacity to make informed decisions about their partners. However, it is unfortunate that the Muslim community’s response if that of increased policing of girls, which borders on plain harassment. There are videos proclaiming schools and colleges as sites where Hindu men are meeting Muslim girls and Muslim parents are told to keep a watch on their daughters. They are being told not to give them mobile phones as it the major source of this fitna. And they are being told to send their daughters to Muslim only schools so that they do not meet boys and girls from another religion.

Groups of Muslims boys have already assumed the responsibility of rescuing their “sisters.” This has taken the form of naked vigilantism as being reported from some parts of the country. A video from Madhya Pradesh tells the harrowing tale of a Muslim girl and a Hindu boy who were out together. A group of young Muslim men surround them and question the girl’s ‘purpose’ of hanging out with a non-Muslim boy. The girl, tries to take issue with the mob but is quickly silenced by ferocious male voices. They tell her that she is besmirching the name of Islam. The boy, shaking and shivering, is slapped and abused. In the last couple of weeks such videos of Muslim vigilantism have worryingly surfaced from Aurangabad, Patna and Meerut.

In the name of stopping “Bhagwa love trap”, the action of such Muslim groups is nothing but the desire to police women’s movement with the ultimate objective of domesticating her. We already saw this third-rate masculinity at work during the so-called love jihad campaign where Hindu girls were similarly policed and harassed by Hindu men. Thankfully, there were a number of Hindu women who spoke openly against this intimidation. But when it comes to Muslims, the number of girls in arena of higher education is already miniscule and hence we might not see the kind of resistance which we saw within the Hindu society. The singular effect of this rabid vigilantism will only result in the further exclusion and marginalization of Muslim women.

Muslims need to realize that such vigilantism might even become counterproductive. Young men can brag about the fact that they stopped their ‘sisters’ from meeting men from other religions, but Muslim girls will certainly construe this as one more effort to block their progress. Finding a dead end, some of them would naturally start to detest this religion and start to look for an exit. These apostates will not be created because of a sinister design by the Hindus but simply because of the hooliganism perpetrated by their “brothers in Islam.”

A regular contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Arshad Alam is a writer and researcher on Islam and Muslims in South Asia.

First Published on newageislam.com

The post Is There A Bhagwa/Saffron Love Trap For Muslim Girls? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a video clip posted on youtube (https://youtu.be/tyO5E8MgQEQ), the influential cleric with a large following among Muslims across the country can be seen and heard issuing the edict: “Do not send your girls to college unaccompanied, not even with a hijab. This is haram, haram (forbidden, sinful). On this night of holy Ramzan, I send this curse on parents who send their daughters to a coaching centre or college unaccompanied: unless they mend their ways, may Allah condemn them to hell.”  

Nomani further declared: hijab or burqa is not enough… it is the duty of parents to keep in touch with the college principal and urge her/him to inform them if their daughter bunks any classes.

The word ‘Maulana’ means a learned Muslim scholar but the latest fulmination of Nomani reeks of blatant ignorance and misogyny. Where does his dire warning leave his flock of followers? How practical is it for either of the parents to accompany their hijab or burqa-clad daughter to college and back, then to coaching classes and back on an everyday basis? What if they have more than one daughter, pursuing different courses/careers, attending different colleges? And what if both parents are working?

Nomani’s imagery and advise are patently feudal; unsuited for Indian Muslims who are overwhelmingly working class. Does it also mean that sending their daughter to a hostel is out of the question? Is this not an indirect way of advising parents to keep their daughters away from higher education? And what about the sons: do as they please?

When the Taliban recaptured power in Afghanistan in 2021, Nomani was among the first to rejoice and dash off his congratulations to the mullahs. His blatantly anti-women utterances are proof of his Talibani mindset. By damning those who do not follow his diktat to hell, Nomani is attempting to exert pressure upon and influence his followers to discriminate against women in the community and deprive them of their agency, right to move freely and right to education which are provided under the Indian Constitution.

Muslim women are leaders and educators of today, with equal rights and entitlements. Nomani is not only threatening those rights directly by misrepresenting and using the tool of religion, but is misusing his authority to propagate inequality and orthodoxy. The IMSD categorically rejects Nomani’s antediluvian ideas and underlines that they do not represent the opinion of all Indian Muslims. This moral policing of women should stop and the likes of Nomani should be called out by all right-thinking Indians.

Many decades ago, it was this very mindset which advised Muslims to keep away from modern education as a result of which Muslims are the most deprived community in India. Today, when Muslim women are coming out in large numbers to access higher education, it should be welcomed and the community should put structures in place to facilitate this process. Instead, we have regressive minds like Nomani who want to put breaks on Muslim women empowerment and re-domesticate them. In particular, we appeal to Muslim organizations to condemn this anti-women statement of Nomani.  

Signatories:

1. A. J. Jawad, Advocate, Chennai
2. Aftab Khan, Journalist, Nasik
3. Anjum Rajabali, Film Writer, Mumbai
4. Arif Kapadia, IMSD, Business, Activist, Mumbra, Thane
5. Arshad Alam, IMSD, Columnist, New Age Islam, Delhi
6. Aziz Lokhandwala, Businessman, Mumbai
7. Bader Sayeed, Advocate, former MLA, Chennai
8. Bilal Khan, IMSD, Activist, Mumbai
9. Farhan Rahman, Asst. Prof., Ranchi University, Ranchi
10. Feroze Mithiborwala, IMSD, Co-convener, Bharat Bachao Andolan, Mumbai
11. Gauhar Raza, Anhad, Delhi
12.  Irfan Engineer, IMSD Co-convener, CSSS, Mumbai
13.  Javed Anand, IMSD Convener, CJP, SabrangIndia Online, Mumbai
14.  Kasim Sait, Businessman, Philanthropist, Chennai
15.  Khadija Farouqui, IMSD, Activist, Delhi
16.  Lara Jesani, IMSD, PUCL, Mumbai
17.  Mansoor Sardar, IMSD, Bhiwandi
18.  Massoma Ranalvi, IMSD, We Speak Out, Delhi
19.  Mohammed Imran, PIO, USA
20.  Muniza Khan, IMSD, CJP, Varanasi
21.  Naseeruddin Shah, Actor, Mumbai
22. Nasreen Fazelbhoy, IMSD, Mumbai
23.  Qutub Jahan, IMSD, NEEDA, Mumbai
24.  (Dr) Ram Puniyani, IMSD, Author, Activist, Mumbai
25.  Rashida Tapadar, Academic, Activist, Nagaland
26.  Ratna Pathak, Actor, Mumbai
27. Sabah Khan, IMSD, Parcham, Mumbra/Mumbai
28.  Saif Mahmood, IMSD, Supreme Court Lawyer, Delhi
29.  Shabana Azmi, Actor, Former MP, Mumbai
30.  Shabana Mashraki, IMSD, Consultant, Mumbai
31.  Shabnam Hashmi, Anhad, Delhi
32.  Shama Zaidi, Documentary Film Maker, Mumbai
33.  Shamsul Islam, Author, Delhi
34.  Sheeba Aslam Fehmi, IMSD, TV Commntator, Delhi
35.  Simantini Dhuru, Documentary Film Maker, Mumbai
36. Sohail Hashmi, IMSD, Sahmat, Delhi
37. Sultan Shahin, Editor-in chief and publisher, New Age Islam, Delhi
38. Taizoon Khorakiwala, Businessman, Philanthropist, NRI
39.  Teesta Setalvad, IMSD, CJP, SabrangIndia Online, Mumbai
40.  Yash Paranjpe, Activist, Mumbai
41.  Yousuf Saeed, Documentary Film Maker, Delhi
42.  Zakia Soman, BMMA, Delhi
43.  Zeenat Shaukat Ali, IMSD, Wisdom Foundation, Mumbai

The post IMSD condemns ‘Maulana’ Sajjad Nomani’s Talibani firman appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A snippet of one of these videos is circulating on social media where he says that girls should not be sent to colleges and schools alone and those parents who send their daughter alone, should be sentenced to Jahannum (hell).

He said that it does not matter even if the daughter is wearing a hijab and going to college, she is not to be left unaccompanied. “Even if you have to send your girls to college, meet the college Principal and request them to inform you whether she attended all classes or she bunked classes and went somewhere else.”

“If you are a father, a Muslim, then it is forbidden for you to be careless about your daughters,” he added.

These statements are probably stemming from the hijab controversy or even the rise in numbers of Muslim women enrolling in higher studies. According to the government’s All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) for 2020-21 Muslim women were higher in number compared to Muslim men in undergraduate courses and other degrees, diplomas, and certificates. This is a percentage of women already enrolled in higher studies and does not speak of the entire muslim women population. As per the 2011 census, female literacy rate among Muslims was only about 52%.

While these statements from him are grossly misogynistic and aim to kill whatever agency Muslim women have, he is known to make controversial statements. Last year in June while speaking at an event in Jaipur, on the hijab controversy, he said, “In Udupi, Mysore, Bengaluru, girls’ hijabs were pulled, try to do the same in Rajasthan and pull women’s veil”.

In 2021 when the Taliban took over Afghanistan, he celebrated the fact and congratulated the Taliban. No wonder he celebrated the Taliban taking over Afghanistan since he endorses their view that a woman must be accompanied by a man when in public.

Related:

BJP will put an end to Muslim reservations, it’s unconstitutional: Amit Shah, Telangana
Report Finds ‘Systematic Discrimination’ Against Muslims in Govt Schemes in 10 Districts
No minister, all is not well with India’s Muslims

The post Sajjad Nomani says girls should not be allowed to go to college alone appeared first on SabrangIndia.

CPI(M) leader John Brittas on February 10 raised the hijab issue in the Rajya Sabha claiming that over a lakh Muslim girl students have dropped out of government colleges in Karnataka after the controversial ban on head coverings in educational institutions in the state. Brittas was taking part in a discussion on a private member resolution, moved by Abdul Wahab of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), seeking that the government implement the recommendations of the Sachar Committee report.

Since early 2021 when the ill-conceived and targeted “Hijab ban’ in the coastal districts of the southern state gripped the headlines and fed the grist of the propaganda mill, several formal and informal surveys have underlined the sharp impact of this restriction of girls (women) participation in education.

Hijab Ban, Drop outs and the Right to Education

This was strongly validated by one of the two judges hearing the famed Hijab case in the Supreme Court. In a split verdict Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia struck down the circular instituting the ban (October 2022). When Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia overturned the circular he did so emphasizing both fundamental rights due to every citizen and directive principles of state policy a constitutional obligation of governments: he declared that demanding Muslim girls’ to remove their hijabs at the school gates constituted a violation of their privacy, a harm against their dignity, and ultimately a denial of a secular education. His verdict was prescient as studies by The Indian Express and also the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) documented the deleterious impact: how young women had been pushed to leave school because of the ban.

How many girls left schools and junior colleges?

A survey conducted by the Indian Express earlier this year gives us a glimpse into the impact. In 2022-23, there were 186 Muslim student enrollments in Udupi’s government PUCs (91 girls and 95 boys), which is almost half compared to the 2021-22 number, 388 (178 girls and 210 boys). Hence the conclusion that there is (was) almost a 50% drop in the admission of Muslim students in government pre-university colleges (PUCs) in Udupi district. Nearly 4,971 students in all categories registered for PUCs in government institutions in Udupi in 2022-23 compared to 5,962 the previous year. The survey also stated that while, fortunately, there is not much change in Muslim students entering pre-university colleges (Class 11) in the district, there is a massive dip in admission to government PUCs. In 2022-23 there were 186 Muslim student enrollments in Udupi’s government PUCs (91 girls and 95 boys), which is almost half compared to the 2021-22 number, 388 (178 girls and 210 boys). In 2022-23, private PUCs saw a hike in Muslim admissions with 927 (487 girls and 440 boys) as compared to 2021-22 number, 662 (328 girls and 334 boys).

Experts opined to the national newspaper that the shift from government to private is due to the recent hijab issue that dominated the early months of 2022. “The enrollment of Muslim girls in our PU college has almost doubled for the first time. This is a testament to how the hijab issue has actually impacted them personally and academically,” Indian Express quoted administrator of Saliath Group of Education, Aslam Haikady saying. Predictably however, Karnataka’s minister of school education B C Nagesh refused to acknowledge this fallout stating to The Indian Express that “there is an overall increase in the overall admissions in PUCs as compared to previous years.”

Almost corroborating the findings of the Express survey, a January 2023, PUCL Karnataka report concluded that “there has been a negative impact of the hijab ban on Muslim girl students in Karnataka as over 1,000 Muslim girls dropping out of the formal education system.” The report titled ‘Closing the Gates to Education: Violations of Rights of Muslim Women Students in Karnataka’ revealed that a total of 1,010 hijab-wearing girls dropped out of PU colleges “because of the hijab ban and other reasons as well”.  The PUCL survey/study covered five Karnataka districts – Hassan, Dakshina Kannada, Udupi, Shimoga, and Raichur and concluded that the “vilification campaign against hijab-wearing students, “by supremacist Hindutva forces contributed to this situation. The PUCL report also focused on the inaction of the government and the police who gave implicit encouragement to such fundamentalist forces. In the aftermath of the hijab ban, the report observed that students were forced to remove their hijab before entering college premises. Those who continued their education in the same colleges faced many challenges. The report also examines the role of college authorities and administrative and police officials with respect to the ban. According to the PUCL report, Muslim girl students faced humiliation and harassment in classrooms at the hands of the faculty, college administration, and classmates. The report noted that besides being actively prevented from accessing their right to education, Muslim women students also bore the brunt of a climate of hate, hostility, and misinformation.

The state government’s failure to fulfill its obligation to uphold Article 41 of the Constitution (effective provision for securing the right to education). “These rights which have been violated include Right to Education without Discrimination, Right to Equality, Right to Dignity, Right to Privacy, Right to Expression, Right to Non-Discrimination and Freedom from Arbitrary State Action,” the PUCL report said. The human rights platform also alleged that the Karnataka government completely ignored its constitutional obligation in its “single-minded focus on ensuring that the hijab was prohibited in colleges”. It said that several students had to drop out of educational institutes because of the directive.

Urging the Basavaraj Bommai-led government  to rescind the notification that banned the wearing of the hijab in schools and colleges. It also urged the judiciary to carry out an inquiry to look into why the government took such a “sudden, arbitrary and unconstitutional” action.“The human rights commission and minority commission should register suo motu complaints against the principals and CDCs [college development committees] for violating the fundamental rights of the concerned students and initiate actions at the earliest,” the organisation said.

Hijab a matter of personal choice

In this overall climate of exclusion, the split verdict of Justice Dhulia was a breather. He had emphasised that wearing a hijab does not violate public order, morality, health, or decency, some of the justifications for limiting basic rights. He urged that society make fair accommodations in light of India’s numerous traditions. He believed that respect for others’ dignity and a commitment to brotherhood call for tolerance and a willingness to make fair accommodations for their personal views. Contrary to his brother judge on the bench, Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Dhulia was clear: he believed that the pre-university institution was the ideal setting for teaching students the constitutional ideals of tolerance and accommodation while also exposing them to the diversity that exists in the nation.

In this impressive 73-page verdict, Justice Dhulia focused on the problem of Muslim females being denied access to school. He stressed the violation of Muslim women’s fundamental rights as well as the need of the court to advance diversity rather than uniformity in our nation. While giving his decision, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia cited the decision given in the Bijoy Emanuel case, which had held that courts only need to test whether a practice is prevalent, was established and a bona fide one, he stated that wearing the hijab meets all three criteria.

Distancing the hijab ban case from the essential religious practice issue, Justice Dhulia acknowledges wearing hijab as the individual’s right to choose. He states it unfortunate that the education of Muslim women had to suffer.

“A girl child for whom it is still not easy to reach her school gate. This case here, therefore, has also to be seen in the perspective of the challenges already faced by a girl child in reaching her school. The question this court would put before itself is also whether we are making the life of a girl child any better by denying her education merely because she wears a hijab!” he noted in para 65 and 66 of his judgment.

He continued by saying that under the constitution, donning a hijab should only be a matter of personal preference. It may or may not be a requirement for practicing one’s religion, but it is still a matter of conscience, conviction, and expression. As long as a girl chooses to wear a hijab, even in a classroom, she cannot be prohibited from doing so, according to Justice Dhulia. In certain circumstances, wearing a hijab is the only way a girl’s orthodox family will allow her to attend school.

Related:

Right to Education under attack: Are the Courts misguided in treating the hijab ban case as simply a religious issue?

It is a matter of choice, nothing more nothing less: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in Hijab Ban case

Hijab Ban case: SC wonders if right to dress also makes right to undress a fundamental right

BREAKING: Wearing of Hijab not essential religious practice: Karnataka HC

Justice Hemant Gupta’s take on secularism, fraternity and uniformity in the Hijab Ban case

The post 1000s or hundreds of thousands, the Karnataka govt’s ill-motivated ‘Hijab ban’ has pushed Muslim girls out of school appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bengaluru: A controversy has erupted in Karnataka over the state’s ruling BJP government’s decision to build 10 new colleges exclusively for Muslim girls, with Hindu organisations warning of widespread protests.

The government is however moving ahead with its decision and has allotted a Rs 2.50-crore grant, sources said, adding that that Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai is all set to lay down the foundation stone for the colleges this month.

The colleges are going to be built in the Malnad and north Karnataka regions initially, and will expand later, the sources added.

Maulana Shafi Saadi, Chairperson of the Karnataka Wakf Board, said that the proposal for the exclusive colleges was made by the Board and the decision was taken after large number of Muslim girls have opted to stay at home since wearing of hijab is not allowed in college premises.

“The proposal was made to the Union Minister of Women and Child Development Smriti Irani. The delegation was led by Karnataka Minister for Muzrai Shashikala Jolle and Kalaburagi MP Umesh Jadhav,” he said.

“The state government has consented to the proposal. I thank Minister Shashikala Jolle who took lead like a sister to ensure, Muslim girls are educated.”

However, the development has created a furore in the state.

Hindu Jana Jagruthi Samithi leader Mohan Gowda said that if colleges are being built Muslim girls, then Hindu educational institutes should also come up.

Maintaining that the decision is against the principles of secularism and the constitution, Gowda warned that “if the government does not revert it, protests would be launched”.

Sri Rama Sena founder Pramod Muthalik has challenged the ruling state government against building the colleges, saying it won’t be allowed in the state.

“We never thought BJP would indulge in appeasement of Muslims ahead of the Assembly elections. This is a divisive rule and the colleges are opened in the backdrop of the hijab crisis. This would make students develop a divisive mindset,” he explained.

Courtesy: The Daily Siasat

The post Karnataka: Controversy over decision to build colleges for Muslim girls appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Asking girls to take off hijab invasion of privacy, attack on dignity”

India is country of many religions, with its plurality and diversity being essential to its fundamental constitutional mandate. In the new India being insidiously re-fashioned, however, displays of difference, or minority cultures has led to manufactured public outrage. And, while the Indian government uses its flagship “Beti Bachao Beti Padhao” programme to ‘promote the education of daughters’ armed affiliate mobs have been seen to terrorise any girl, or woman who is “different.”

The Indian Supreme Court’s recent split-judgment on the Hijab Ban case has once again brought to light a problematic aspect of the ‘Hijab Row’, especially in the manner in which the issue was presented and argued –by petitioner organisations themselves –before the Karnataka High Court. Earlier this year, while during the hearing of the matter before the Karnataka High Court, one of the arguments that was majorly relied on by the petitioners was that wearing the hijab is an “essential religious practice” for Muslim women nationwide, and as such, it ought to be protected under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. This argument takes the issue down a precarious slope. Tragically, the high court, a constitutional forum, instead of elevating the issue beyond and above this argument, also dealt and discarded the rights of the young girls on that count alone.

Determining if an activity is or was “essentially religious” is where the phrase “essential religious practice” originated. If accepted as such, it would be given Article 25(1) protection, which grants every individual the freedom of conscience and right to practice, profess and propagate any religion. However, over time, the Supreme Court’s interpretations have metamorphosed into one where the Court considers (or can consider) whether any activity is actually “essential to a religion.”

From all the arguments that were presented before the Karnataka High Court in this case, it is unfortunate to see that the focus was majorly on making the issue or controversy about religion, while the issue of the right or access of every girl’s right to education was majorly ignored. The entire issue snowballed after some Muslim girls were being denied their right to education.

In December 2021, six Hijab-clad Muslim students belonging to Udupi’s Government Pre-University College for Girls were barred from attending classes. The institute’s purported reason: “no religious activity will be allowed on campus.” The girls were marked absent for at least three weeks before they protested the ban on 31 December, saying “though it is our constitutional right, they are still not allowing us to go in the class because we are wearing hijab.” A government resolution on the issue was quoted as the reason behind this action.

The students subsequently filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, and also approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Meanwhile, triggered by the increasingly shrill posturing around the issue, some Hindu students (clearly supported by politically supremacist outfits) donned saffron scarves as a symbol of their opposition to the hijab, while the number of institutions that prohibited more and more Muslim girls continued to increase across Karnataka. On January 4, around 50 students of a state-run degree college in Chikmagalur District wore saffron-coloured scarves and raised slogans outside their educational institution. This led to both scarves and hijabs being banned from classrooms in the institute.

What is pertinent to stress however what is at stake is not just the issue of religion or culture. While the ban was applied to both saffron shawls and the hijab, it was the Muslim girls who had to sit in separate classes till they removed their hijab, not give their final exams, stand outside the gate of the educational institutes to protest for their rights or opt for getting transfer certificates. It was their education that suffered, along with their future opportunities. But this issue, of the right of every girl/woman to education, was on the back burner while the High Court decided whether wearing hijabs constitutes an essential religious practice and if the court can at all, intervene in such matters.

The Karnataka High Court held that the hijab (head scarf) worn by Muslim women does not constitute a necessary component of Islamic religious practices and is, therefore, not protected by the freedom of religion provided by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The Court further determined that the need of school uniforms did not infringe on either the right to privacy protected by Article 21 of the Constitution or the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution.

Additionally, the Court ruled that the ban on wearing a hijab in educational settings is just a fair limitation (of dress in a secular institution). The students cannot have a constitutional objection to this since it is legal. Thus, it affirmed the validity of the order issued by the Karnataka Government on February 5. In accordance with the Karnataka Education Act of 1983, the Karnataka government required the wearing of uniforms in schools and pre-university colleges in this order.

The Court also ruled that individual rights cannot be asserted in “qualified public places” like schools at the expense of overall decorum and discipline. This phrase is used a total of six times in the judgement. The court also notes that just as a detainee or a criminal does not always have absolute fundamental rights, a school is a qualified public space where the exercise of fundamental rights is regulated. The court makes this argument despite the fact that this word is not defined in the ruling. The court claims that in certain areas, “substantive rights transform into derivative rights.” On many levels, this proposition is itself a risky venture. A courtroom, a jail, a war room, and a defense camp are further instances of qualifying locations mentioned in the ruling.

This understanding goes against the essence of our democracy as rules made at such places can’t be seen as diluting rights under Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15 (no discrimination) and Article 19 (1) (freedom of expression). Fundamental rights were not intended to be protected by the Constitution in such a fragile fashion that they might be eliminated in the sake of “general discipline and decorum.”

The High Court Judgment further observes “…the Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women…because of absence of prescription of penalty or penance for not wearing hijab….It is not that if the alleged practice of wearing hijab is not adhered to, those not wearing hijab become sinners, Islam loses its glory and it ceases to be a religion.” (Part IX, clause iii)

As this can be claimed about the majority of religious behaviour, the interpretation mentioned above would severely restrict the extent of religious freedom for all religions. The standard of evidence placed on the community in issue to demonstrate that donning the hijab is an essential practice has been set excessively high by the ruling, which has a severely constrained understanding of the freedom of conscience. The Court has overlooked the implications for Muslim women’s personal freedom in pursuing their education and leading the lives they choose while issuing its ruling and weighing the arguments. The ability to choose what and how to dress is something that needs to be granted to every women, religion no bar. Courts shouldn’t be used as a forum for religious changes in a democracy like India; “Individual fundamental liberties provide a far more sound and stable foundation for reform than secular Courts ruling on religious doctrine, which they are ill-equipped to do,” the judges had opined.

The judgment can be read here.

Thus, the approach taken by the Karnataka High Court in deciding this case was erroneous as courts even attempting adjudication over ERP has been criticised by academicians and scholar for a long time. Additionally, it has been contended that the essentiality/integrity concept tends to steer the Court into a realm outside of its purview and gives judges the authority to make decisions that are solely religious in nature. As a result, over the years, courts have taken differing positions on this issue. For instance, in Gandhi v. State of Bombay (1954), the Supreme Court stated that no outside authority has the authority to declare that these are the fundamental components of religion and that the secular authority of the state is not free to restrict or forbid them in any way. The Courts have occasionally used religious scriptures to assess essentiality, while in other instances they have relied on adherents’ actual behavior.

Some landmark judgments on religion and ERP:

• In 2018, in the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association and Others Vs. The State of Kerala and Others, the Supreme Court gave permission to menstruating women to enter the Sabarimala Temple. In this case,  in deciding the question as to whether a given religious practice is an integral part of the religion or not, the court observed that the test always would be whether it is regarded as such by the community following the religion or not.

• In 2016, in the case of Mohammed Zubair Corporal Vs Union Of India & Ors, the Muslim airman’s expulsion from the Indian Air Force for sporting a beard was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court effectively concluded that having a beard was not a requirement for practicing Islam.

• In 2004, the Supreme Court held that the Ananda Marga sect had no inherent right to perform the Tandava dance in public because it was not a basic aspect of their religion.

• The Supreme Court affirmed the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1970 in matter of Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972). According to the Court, the Act’s main goal was to govern managerial and administrative practices. It was not intended to control or alter the customs observed in temples regarding rites and ceremonies.

• In Sardar Syedna Taher Saiffuddin Saheb v State of Bombay (1962), he Supreme Court’s five-judge panel confirmed the Head Priest of the Dawoodi Bohra Community’s claim to and authority over excommunication. It was also noted that information on what constitutes an important activity may be found in the religious books and tenets. The Legislature was not allowed, according to the Court, to eradicate a religion’s existence or identity.

In furtherance to this, the High Court judgment making this issue just about religion was not fair. They failed to take into account the fact that if the hijab was prohibited, it would severely restrict the Muslim women in question by infringing their fundamental rights and causing an irreparable loss to their educational opportunities. Even before this, when the interim order was enacted prohibiting the wearing of the hijab or saffron shawls as a means of displaying one’s religion, the trouble this would cause Muslim women who wear the hijab was disregarded.

Supreme Court on Hijab in the Classroom

The ruling of the Karnataka Government was affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court subsequently heard this matter. On October 13, 2022, the two judge bench delivered a split judgment.  In view of the “divergence in opinion”, the apex court directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.

The bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing the case. In dismissing the appeals, Justice Hemant Gupta stated that religious convictions cannot be brought to a secular institution run with state funds. Fundamental liberties are not untouchable and are open to legitimate limitations. He understood the goal of the Karnataka state government’s circular prohibiting headscarves to be upholding discipline and uniformity. He contended that uniformity fosters an atmosphere of equality where brotherly principles may be ingrained. He further emphasised on the value and absorbing qualities of uniforms. Additionally, he observed that students are free to carry their religious symbols outside of schools and that wearing a hijab is only prohibited during school hours. However, he added that at colleges, students should appear to be of a same mindset, i.e. look, feel and think alike.

On the other hand, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia overturned the challenged High Court decision, declaring that demanding Muslim girls’ to remove their hijabs at the school gates constituted a violation of their privacy, a harm against their dignity, and ultimately a denial of a secular education. He emphasised that wearing a hijab does not violate public order, morality, health, or decency, some of the justifications for limiting basic rights. He urged that society make fair accommodations in light of India’s numerous traditions. He believed that respect for others’ dignity and a commitment to brotherhood call for tolerance and a willingness to make fair accommodations for their personal views. Contrary to Justice Hemant Gupta, he believed that the pre-university institution was the ideal setting for teaching students the constitutional ideals of tolerance and accommodation while also exposing them to the diversity that exists in the nation.

In his ruling, Justice Dhulia focused on the problem of Muslim females being denied access to school. He stressed the violation of Muslim women’s fundamental rights as well as the need of the court to advance diversity rather than uniformity in our nation. While giving his decision, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia cited the decision given in the Bijoy Emanuel case, which had held that courts only need to test whether a practice is prevalent, was established and a bona fide one, he stated that wearing the hijab meets all three criteria.

Brief about the Bijoe Emanuel Case:

Facts: Following an allegation that they had refused to sing the national anthem, Bijoe Emmanuel, 15, a student in Class 10, and his sisters Bine and Bindu, 14, and 10, who were students of Classes 9 and 5, were suspended from school. The three kids belonged to the millenarian restorationist Christian sect known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, which has doctrines that are different from those of traditional Christianity. The dispute began in 1985, when the three were students at Kidangoor’s NSS High School in Kerala’s Kottayam district. The school, which was administered by the Hindu Nair Service Society, at the time had 11 Jehovah’s Witnesses as students. Five years had passed since Bijoe was first enrolled at the institution.

The family claimed that when others sung the national anthem, the kids stood as a sign of respect. That was not an issue for the administration of the school or other parents. Bijoe’s father had said that “some vested interests from outside the school dredged up the subject.” Politicians were interested in the situation after reading about it in a local newspaper. The UDF administration launched an investigation by a single-member committee after Congress (S) politician VC Kabeer brought up the matter in the Kerala Assembly.

The panel came to the conclusion that the kids were neither impolite nor had the school made any complaints about them. Nonetheless, the district educational officer stressed that, in order for the Emmanuels to continue attending school, they would have to follow the regulations. He required the kids to confirm in writing that they would join the rest of the class in singing the national song. The family, however, did not find this to be acceptable. The three kids and nine other members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses group were expelled from school on July 25, 1985, purportedly as a result of government pressure.

The Court: Emmanuel and his wife Lillikutty moved Kerala high court, where their plea was rejected by a single judge. They attempted a re-appeal but that too was turned down, this time by a division bench.  Emmanuel, who is not one to give up easily, filed a petition with the Supreme Court on behalf of his three young appellants, Bijoe, Binu, and Bindu.

The landmark Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, 1986 verdict, which is now known as the highest court’s decision, was delivered on August 11, 1986, and it sided with the students. Three children were granted protection as the Supreme Court’s bench of Justices O Chinnappa Reddy and M M Dutt ruled that making the kids sing “Jana Gana Mana” was against their basic religious freedom.

“We may at once say that there is no provisions of law which obliges anyone to sing the National Anthem nor do we think that it is disrespectful to the National Anthem if a person who stands up respectfully when the National Anthem is sung does not join the singing,” the SC court said in Para 2 of the judgment.

“Proper respect is shown to the National Anthem by standing up when the National Anthem is sung. It will not be right to say that disrespect is shown by not joining in the singing….” the SC court said in Para 4 of the judgment.

Justice Chinnappa Reddy noted in paragraph 2 of his judgment that that the High Court “misdirected itself” by considering the national anthem in minute detail and concluding that “there was no word or thought… which could offend anyone’s religious susceptibilities”. “But that is not the question at all. The objection of the petitioners is not to the language or the sentiments of the National Anthem: they do not sing the National Anthem wherever, ‘Jana Gana Mana’ in India, ‘God save the Queen’ in Britain, the Star-spangled Banner in the United States and so on…,” the order said.

The verdict is considered a landmark judgment on freedom of speech in India. The order can be read here. 

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

In a 73-page judgment, Justice Dhulia noted in para 79 of his judgment, “fraternity, which is our constitutional value, would therefore require us to be tolerant, and as some of the counsel would argue to be, reasonably accommodating, towards the belief and religious practices of others. We should remember the appeal made by Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy in Bijoe Emmanuel — our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it.”

Distancing the hijab ban case from the essential religious practice issue, Justice Dhulia acknowledges wearing hijab as the individual’s right to choose. He states it unfortunate that the education of Muslim women had to suffer.

“A girl child for whom it is still not easy to reach her school gate. This case here, therefore, has also to be seen in the perspective of the challenges already faced by a girl child in reaching her school. The question this court would put before itself is also whether we are making the life of a girl child any better by denying her education merely because she wears a hijab!” he noted in para 65 and 66 of his judgment.

He continued by saying that under the constitution, donning a hijab should only be a matter of personal preference. It may or may not be a requirement for practicing one’s religion, but it is still a matter of conscience, conviction, and expression. As long as a girl chooses to wear a hijab, even in a classroom, she cannot be prohibited from doing so, according to Justice Dhulia. In certain circumstances, wearing a hijab is the only way a girl’s orthodox family will allow her to attend school.

There is a sharp contrast between the divergent opinions of this Bench of the Supreme Court. The actual problem here is not whether or not the hijab is worn; rather, it is the intrusive State’s denial of a person’s right to choose and the impact this has on a minority population in India. Today, a state that is headed for elections and is being purposefully divided along religious lines is using the uniform as a shield to demonstrate a fake uniformity and win political brownie points. Muslim women are denied the power to make their own decisions as lawmakers sit in their high seats, making pronouncements, and deciding whether or not the hijab is an essential Islamic practice. Access to education, dignity and freedom of expression are all basic rights, granted to us by our forefathers. But are they limited to the majority only?

It is now obvious that the topic has proven to be extremely polarising at all societal levels, and the case symbolizes the dilemma facing Indian culture and the rest of the globe over the actual nature of secularism. Does this imply that the government has a wholly neutral attitude toward all faiths, or does it imply that it recognises and tries to meet the needs, anxieties, and ambitions of individuals who lack the support of a large majority?

While the opinions forwarded by Justice Dhulia are refreshing and welcome, it is pertinent to note that while another bench is being constituted by the Supreme Court, the ban on the hijab still exists. Muslim girls are still not able to continue with their education, even though one year has passed. We might or might not agree with the practice of wearing hijab, but it will be wrong for us to delude ourselves that we are doing the Muslim women a big favor and bringing progress in this nation by imposing a ban on hijab. Forcefully taking away their choice, identity and self-expression might have the opposite effect.

The judgment by Justice Dhulia can be read here.

Related:

It is a matter of choice, nothing more nothing less: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in Hijab Ban case

Hijab Ban case: SC wonders if right to dress also makes right to undress a fundamental right

BREAKING: Wearing of Hijab not essential religious practice: Karnataka HC

Justice Hemant Gupta’s take on secularism, fraternity and uniformity in the Hijab Ban case

The post Right to Education under attack: Are the Courts misguided in treating the hijab ban case as simply a religious issue? appeared first on SabrangIndia.