Image used for representational purpose only. (File Photo)
Image used for representational purpose only. (File Photo)

Matter of choice but justice eludes Hijab case girls

The issue relates to choice, the primal right of, in this case, the girls wishing to wear the hijab. To illustrate the point, the hijab case and the Iran protests are similar.

The Supreme Court arrives at a split verdict in the ‘hijab case’, officially known as Aishat Shifa vs The State of Karnataka. The split is not merely in the ruling; it is also in the form of diametrically opposite world views of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia. The former upholds the Karnataka government’s ban on hijab in government educational institutions. The latter revokes it. However, because of the split verdict, the ban stays.

The Chief Justice of India now has to refer the case to a larger bench. One cannot but ask the logic behind giving a sensitive case with national repercussions to a two-judge bench, given the possibility of an indecisive ruling. The court would have its reasons, but in the end, the case must necessarily be handed over to an odd-numbered bench for a clear judgement. This causes delays. Moreover, there is no verdict as such to be subject to scrutiny. At best, the analysis can only mean revisiting the fundamental arguments involved.

The issue relates to choice, the primal right of, in this case, the girls wishing to wear the hijab. To illustrate the point, the hijab case and the Iran protests are similar. It is about the choice to wear the hijab in one case and not to wear it in the other. In India, the Union government has taken up the cause of women’s welfare and empowerment, respecting their choice to conceive or abort an unwanted pregnancy, to attend school and college, and not to be forced into child marriage or forced sex even in marriage. How come a school uniform comes in the way of girls’ choice to wear an additional piece of cloth?

In the Karnataka case, factors like religion and religious practice are incidental—their role is limited to identifying the students by their religion—when dealing with a matter of choice. A student gets admitted to school only for education. A uniform merely identifies the student as belonging to a specific school though some perceive it implies equality. Neither has anything to do with education. Holding the sanctity of the uniform higher than education defeats the essential spirit of the educational institution. Pushing the girls to remove their hijab outside school is insulting their choice. Denying them education when they resist is insulting their dignity.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com