Karnataka’s hijab controversy which broke out in early January when six girl students of a government pre-university college were denied entry into their classrooms for wearing hijabs (headscarves) is spreading in ever widening circles across the country, and has even drawn the attention of the Jeddah (Saudi Arabia)-based Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which has expressed “deep concerns” about “continued attacks targeting Muslims”. The matter is now being adjudicated by a three-judge bench of the Karnataka high court.

Even as the matter is sub judice, it’s important for educators, parents, and students — our core readership — to understand the complex legal and constitutional issues involved. In Part III, the Constitution of India grants three valuable fundamental rights to all citizens. The first is the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a). It can be argued that the right to wear hijab is equivalent to freedom of expression. In favour of the petitioners, it is also being argued that under Article 15 that the State (i.e, government college) is prohibited from discriminating against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste or place of birth. Not allowing students wearing headscarves is tantamount to discrimination on the basis of religion. Moreover under Article 25 of the Constitution, all citizens have been conferred the right to freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of their religion. The petitioners contend that prohibition of the hijab abridges their right to freely practice their religion.

These three Articles included in Part III which spell out the fundamental rights of citizens apart, Article 21-A which makes it incumbent upon the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children between the age of six to 14 in such manner as the State may by law determine, may also be germane to the issue of girl children being permitted to wear headscarves in school classrooms. If girls in pre-university colleges are permitted head covering in classes XI-XII because of religious injunction, it could be argued that they should be granted the same right in classes IX-X because Islam decrees that they cover their hair upon attaining puberty.

Against this the Karnataka government contends that a judgement in favour of the petitioners could prove to be the thin end of a wedge that will divide the country’s classrooms on religious lines and undermine the secular character of the Indian State.

Therefore, the judges of the Karnataka high court have to walk through a minefield of competing fundamental rights. But that’s why judges — individuals of great learning and experience of the law — are appointed. No doubt the learned judges will apply their erudition and experience in the judgement they deliver. The issues involved in the hijab controversy are too complex for media pundits and laymen to resolve. Therefore the constitutional schema requires all citizens to abide by the verdict whether they agree with it or not.