Summary
Split verdict on Karnataka's Government Order of 5.2.2022, which required students to wear the uniform prescribed by College Development Committees and was used to keep hijab-wearing students out of pre-university classrooms. Hemant Gupta J. upheld the order. He held it valid law under the Karnataka Education Act and a reasonable, religion-neutral regulation, and said religious symbols can be kept out of a State-run secular school even if hijab were an essential practice. Sudhanshu Dhulia J. held that the essential religious practice inquiry was the wrong test. In his view, barring hijab at the school gate violates Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 25(1), and he would have quashed the order. Given the divergent views, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice of India for an appropriate Bench.
Issues
- Whether the appeals should be referred to a larger Bench or tagged with the pending Sabarimala review reference
- Whether the College Development Committee was validly constituted and whether the Government Order is law competent to restrict uniform
- Whether wearing hijab is protected under Article 25 and whether the essential religious practice test applies to an individual claim
- Whether prohibiting hijab in classrooms violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21
- Whether the Government Order offends fraternity, dignity, reasonable accommodation and the State's duty to promote education of girls
Provisions considered
- Article 25(1), Constitution of IndiaGupta J. held the right subject to Part III including Article 14 and not carried into a secular State school; Dhulia J. held that a sincere religious practice needs no essentiality proof and the hijab ban fails the article. (¶¶ 87, 88, 89, 117, 125)
- Articles 19(1)(a) and 21, Constitution of IndiaGupta J. treated the uniform rule as a reasonable regulation with only incidental effect on expression and privacy; Dhulia J. held that dignity and privacy are carried into the classroom and are not derivative rights there. (¶¶ 139, 146, 164)
- Sections 133 and 143; Rule 11 of the 1995 Classification Rules, Karnataka Education Act, 1983Both judges accepted that the State and institutions had power to prescribe a uniform, so the Government Order had statutory backing. (¶¶ 33, 46, 49, 57)
Held
- Gupta J.: no ground to refer the appeals to a larger Bench or to await the Sabarimala review reference, as the questions could be answered on existing precedent. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
- Gupta J.: the College Development Committee was validly constituted and the Government Order, issued under the Act and Rules, is law capable of regulating uniform in State pre-university colleges. (¶¶ 33, 46, 49, 57)
- Gupta J.: even assuming hijab is a religious practice, a student cannot claim to wear it in a secular school maintained from State funds; the State may require all students to wear only the uniform. (¶¶ 117, 125, 164)
- Gupta J.: the order is a reasonable, religion-neutral regulation consistent with Articles 14, 19 and 21, promotes fraternity and equality among students, and does not deny education, since a student who stays away does so by her own choice. (¶¶ 146, 159, 161, 169, 175, 194)
- Gupta J.: reasonable accommodation does not arise, because exempting one group from a uniform would treat students differently, contrary to secularism and Article 14; the appeals and writ petitions were dismissed. (¶¶ 185, 197)
- Dhulia J. (dissenting): the essential religious practice test, developed for community claims under Articles 25(2) and 26, was not relevant to an individual's claim under Article 25(1), and courts should not decide theological questions.
- Dhulia J. (dissenting): Bijoe Emmanuel governs; a sincere practice that harms no one cannot be banned, and the State showed no public order, morality or health reason for barring hijab in a classroom.
- Dhulia J. (dissenting): requiring girls to remove the hijab at the gate invades their privacy and dignity and denies them education, violating Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 25(1). He would set aside the High Court judgment, quash the order and lift restrictions on hijab in Karnataka schools and colleges.
Result
Split verdict: Gupta J. would dismiss the appeals and writ petitions; Dhulia J. would allow them and quash the Government Order. The matter was placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench.