Reacting to the Karnataka High Court ruling upholding a government ban on the headscarf in schools and colleges on the grounds that wearing it was not “essential” to Islam, BBC.com writes, “The verdict, which came in the wake of a polarising row over the hijab, has been challenged in the Supreme Court – an appeal against the ban was filed hours after the high court order.”
It further states, “But constitutional experts and legal scholars say this is not a question for the court to decide.” It quotes senior Supreme Court lawyer Rebecca John as saying, “You’re entering into theological terrain that lawyers and judges have little knowledge about.”
She is further quoted to have said, “When it comes to faith, there’s no uniformity in religious practices – you may come under the umbrella of a particular religion but everybody has their own distinct flavour,” “Even the hijab is symbolic to many things for many kinds of people. The easiest way to condemn it is to say it’s oppressive but across the world, it is used as a symbol of resistance. So, we can’t define what is essential in absolute contours – people adopt it for different reasons.”
She added that, by doing so, he court is stripping women of their agency, reducing complex and intimate choices to simple binary ones.
BBC.com observes, “The Indian constitution allows states to curb the right to freedom of religion on the grounds of public order, health and morality. But the essential religious practice test – which is used to determine what practices are protected by the right to freedom of religion – was born in court.”
It quoted legal scholar and professor Deepa Das Acevedo as saying “What lay beyond the state’s power to regulate or change would, effectively, be determined by the religious communities themselves.” She added that “But over time Indian courts have started using the doctrine to do the “opposite”, that is regulate these matters themselves.”
The report observed, “This is unlike in other countries such as the US, where courts accept a plaintiff’s assertion that a given practice is religious, without questioning it further. But in India the courts are making that decision – and somewhat arbitrarily, experts say.”
It further quoted Ms John questioning “Who are we to say a woman’s choice to wear the hijab is not well thought out?” “The court should’ve considered the agency argument instead of focusing only on the essentiality test.”
Calling it discriminatory Ms John stated, “If you must implement uniforms, then it should be across the board. You can’t allow someone to wear a bindi or have sacred threads around their wrist. When you insist on it only for one class of people, that’s discriminatory.”
BBC.com also quoted a tweet by Ashutosh Varshney who writes: “It is one of the great tragedies of Indian court practices that judges tend to decide what is “essential”to a religion. Thi is bizzare and dangerous! Only religious jurists, or theologians, or the practitioner herself can decide that. A secular court can’t and should not.
The New York Times also reacted to the hijab verdict in its article ‘Indian Court Upholds Ban on Hijabs in Schools’ observing, “A top court in the southern Indian state of Karnataka on Tuesday upheld a government order banning Muslim girls from wearing head scarves inside schools, a ruling that is likely to heighten tensions at a time when India is increasingly polarized along religious lines.”
It also pointed out that “The ruling came at a time when members of India’s minority community are increasingly coming under attack as the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has adopted Hindu-first policies.”
The article highlighted the hate crimes against Muslims stating, “Religious freedom is protected under the country’s Constitution, but there has been a proliferation of religious-based hate crimes, particularly against members of the Muslim community. Their members and right-wing Hindu activists have also been clashing at school campuses around Karnataka.”
The article also recalled call for Muslim genocide asserting, “Right-wing Hindu monks have made calls for other Hindus to arm themselves and kill Muslims. And there has been a rise in violence against Muslims in India under Mr. Modi, part of a broader shift in which minorities feel less safe.
It also mentioned attack on Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi stating, “Recently, a prominent Muslim member of Parliament survived an apparent assassination attempt while campaigning in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. After the police arrested two people accused of shooting at the lawmaker’s vehicle, members of Mr. Modi’s party visited the home of a suspect and declared him innocent.”
The New York Times quoted Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a columnist for The Indian Express, who wrote, “The hijab is not a moment where liberty or equality are being tested,” “It is coming when there is an attempt to visibly erase Muslims from India’s public culture.”
Meanwhile, Al Jazeera observed “Tuesday’s ruling could set a precedent for the rest of the country, home to more than 200 million Muslims who make up about 14 percent of India’s 1.35 billion population.”
“Currently, there is no central law or rule on school uniforms across the country, but the Karnataka ruling could prompt more states to issue such guidelines.” It added.
