Skip to main content



A writ petition was filed by a student of Women’s Government Pre-University College in Udipi for allowing entering into the college wearing Hijab. The ruling party in Karnataka is BJP and it banned the clothes that can religious in nature and said to “disturb the equality, integrity and public order”. The BJP’s State President said that the Government will not allow Hijab into the educational institutions.

The petitioner along with six other students were not allowed to enter her educational institution stating that wearing a Hijab is in violation of the dress code as it is religious in nature and tend to disturb the equality, integrity and public order. The petitioner along with other students sat outside gate of that educational institution, but they were still not allowed to enter into the classes. The college management had spoken with the parents of those students to not send their wards with Hijab, but the parents also insisted on allowing their wards with Hijab.

On January 31, 2022 the petitioner had approached the High Court seeking interim order to allow the students wearing Hijab into the classes until the whole matter is resolved. The petitioner has argued that wearing Hijab was her Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 14 and 25 of the Constitution of India. She stated that not allowing students to practice their religion and not allowing the students to enter the classrooms doesn’t serve the public interest. The state government has constituted an expert committee to look into this issue.

In many cases like Nadha Raheem v. CBSE, Amnah Bint Basheer v. CBSE, the courts gave alternative solutions to the situations where they banned Hijab without affecting the religious sentiments. Kerala High Court single bench order granted permission to Muslim girls to wear the Hijab, a customary religious dress, for All India Pre-Medical Test, 2016 (AIPMET). In Fathima Thasneem v. State of Kerala, it was stated that wearing Hijab is an essential religious practice. 

In some colleges, the girls were allowed into the college with Hijab. In the response some of the students wore saffron scarves as a protest against allowing the students wearing Hijab. Before the introduction of such law banning clothes that are religious, everything was peaceful among the students. This entire situation got worse only after banning clothes that are religious.

In a similar case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court has allowed the Muslim child to only stand during the National Anthem, as her religion doesn’t allow singing any other song irrelevant to her religion. The Court stated that not singing the National Anthem doesn’t mean disrespecting the nation. So, in the same way the author thinks that wearing a Hijab doesn’t disturb the equality, integrity and public order. According to the view of the author, the students have the right to practice their own religion as enshrined under the Article 25 of the Constitution of India. So, according to the author, the students should be allowed to wear Hijab to the classroom in the same way keeping Bindi on the forehead is allowed.

Karnataka – Hijab Row Case by Velanati Jyothirmai @ Lex Cliq


Popular posts from this blog

60 Minute Marriage Counselling Session On Phone

Description A 60 minute phone call with an expert Marriage\Relationship Counselor to discuss your marriage\relationship related issues. Counselling aims to resolve issues and improve communication in a relationship. Couples’ counselling works with both people in the relationship, however sessions can start with one individual, working towards the involvement of the other partner. What's Included a) 60 minute phone call with the counselor where you can discuss all your issues and seek guidance. What's Not Included a) Counselling session via meeting

INCOME TAX SECTION 32AD - Investment in new plant or machinery in notified backward areas in certain States

 Description (1) Where an assessee, sets up an undertaking or enterprise for manufacture or production of any article or thing, on or after the 1st day of April, 2015 in any backward area notified by the Central Government in this behalf, in the State of Andhra Pradesh or in the State of Bihar or in the State of Telangana or in the State of West Bengal, and acquires and installs any new asset for the purposes of the said undertaking or enterprise during the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 2015 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2020 in the said backward area, then, there shall be allowed a deduction of a sum equal to fifteen per cent of the actual cost of such new asset for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such new asset is installed. (2) If any new asset acquired and installed by the assessee is sold or otherwise transferred, except in connection with the amalgamation or demerger or re-organisation of business referred to in clause (xiii)or cla

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B