Constitutional Law

Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka

(2023) 2 SCC 1

Facts

Several Muslim students in Karnataka wore the hijab while attending pre-university colleges.
Disputes arose after educational institutions required adherence to prescribed uniforms.
On 5 February 2022, the Karnataka Government directed government schools to follow prescribed uniforms and permitted other institutions to adopt uniforms fixed by their management or competent committees.
Students challenged the order, arguing that wearing the hijab was protected by Articles 19, 21 and 25.
The Karnataka High Court upheld the order and held that wearing the hijab was not an essential religious practice in Islam.
The students appealed to the Supreme Court.
A two-judge Bench delivered opposing judgments.

Whether wearing the hijab in a classroom was protected under Article 25.
Whether the essential religious practices test was necessary to decide the case.
Whether a uniform requirement violated expression, privacy, dignity and choice.
Whether educational discipline justified the restriction.

Article 25 protects religious practice but is subject to constitutional restrictions and regulation in secular institutions.
Article 19(1)(a) protects expression through clothing, while Article 21 protects dignity, privacy and personal choice.
Restrictions upon these rights require lawful and constitutionally adequate justification.
In a split judgment, no legal proposition becomes the binding ratio of the Court unless supported by a majority.

Justice Hemant Gupta
He upheld the Government order and dismissed the appeals.
A uniform was intended to create equality, discipline and a common educational identity.
Once an institution validly prescribed a uniform, students could not insist upon adding visible religious symbols contrary to it.
He held that the restriction operated only during classroom instruction and did not prohibit religious practice generally.
Even assuming that hijab had religious significance, it could be regulated within a secular educational institution.
He therefore found no violation of Articles 19, 21 or 25.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
He allowed the appeals and set aside the Government order.
In his view, it was unnecessary to determine whether hijab was essential to Islam.
The central question was whether a girl could make a reasonable personal choice regarding clothing while pursuing education.
Wearing a hijab did not threaten public order, discipline or the rights of other students.
He emphasised that many girls already faced social and economic barriers to education.
Compelling them to choose between education and clothing connected with conscience could push them out of school.
Schools should promote inclusion, accommodation and constitutional fraternity rather than demand unnecessary uniformity.