Updated

New Delhi, Oct 13 (IANS): The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a split verdict on a clutch of petitions challenging the Karnataka government's February 5 order, prohibiting wearing of hijab inside classrooms in pre-university colleges.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Justice Gupta dismissed the appeals challenging the Karnataka High Court judgment, whereas Justice Dhulia set aside the high court judgment.

The petitioners had moved the apex court challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state.

Justice Dhulia said he has a different view and he is allowing the appeal against the high court judgment. "It (wearing hijab) is ultimately a matter of choice, nothing more, nothing else," he said.

Justice Dhulia said venturing into essential religious practice was not needed and the high court took the wrong way. He added that one thing which was topmost for him was education of girl children. Justice Dhulia added that a girl child in areas does household work and chores before going to school and are we making her life any better by imposing an additional restriction on her?

Justice Dhulia said he has set aside the Karnataka High Court order and quashed the Karnataka government order of February 5, 2022, and given directions for the removal of the restrictions.

Justice Hemant Gupta said in view of divergent opinion, let the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions. Detailed judgment in the matter will be uploaded later in the day.

The judgment would mean the restrictions on hijab in classrooms as per the state government's February 5 order would continue for now.

After 10 days of marathon hearing, on September 22 the top court had reserved the judgment for Thursday. The bench heard the arguments from the counsels representing the state government, teachers, and the petitioners, who moved the apex court challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state.

It may be reacalled, the hijab crisis in the state has left the student community divided on communal lines and also challenged the law and order situation in the state.

The hijab crisis proved to be a shot in the arm for ruling BJP in Karnataka as it polarised Hindus, especially younger ones. The Hindu organisations began saffron shawl agitation in schools against wearing of hijab in classes and received support.

Majority of Muslim students followed the rule by the government following the High Court's order and attended classes, exams by not wearing hijab.

The Karnataka High Court had dismissed the petition of six girls from Udupi Government Girls College seeking directions to the ruling BJP to allow them to wear hijab and attend classes.

Various organisations raised their voice regarding the issue. The Muslim organisations protested against the Karnataka High Court's verdict of dismissing petitions and ruling that wearing of hijab is not an essential part of Islam religion.

The Hindus accused the Muslim organisations of not respecting the court order and law of the land. They had given call to boycott Muslim traders, artisans.

Earlier report

SC to pronounce verdict on Karnataka's hijab ban on Thursday

New Delhi, Oct 13 (IANS): The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on a clutch of petitions challenging the Karnataka government's February 5 order, prohibiting wearing of hijab inside classrooms in pre-university colleges.

According to the apex court website, the bench will pronounce the judgment on October 13.

After 10 days of marathon hearings, on September 22, a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia reserved their judgment after hearing arguments from the counsel representing the state government, teachers, and the petitioners, who moved the apex court challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state.

During the hearing, the petitioners contended that the high court had wrongly relied upon essential religious practice test for the purpose.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Karnataka government, had alleged that till the year 2021, no girl student was wearing any hijab and uniform being part of essential discipline in schools was being scrupulously followed. However, then a movement started on social media by an organisation called Popular Front of India (PFI) and the movement was designed to create an agitation. Mehta added there were messages on social media to begin wearing hijab and this was not a spontaneous act, instead it was a part of larger conspiracy, and children were acting as advised.

Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing some of the petitioners, submitted that the argument of PFI was not raised before the high court and it is an argument introduced to create prejudice.

The petitioners claimed the Karnataka government order (GO) targeted Muslim women and violated Article 14, and 15 of the Constitution. Therefore, it was irrational, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing some of the petitioners, while making rejoinder submissions, said for those who are believers, hijab is essential and for those who are not believers, it is not essential. He added that there was no cause to issue guidelines in February this year.

The petitioners' counsel vehemently argued that the government order violated their fundamental right to practice religion and cultural rights, which were guaranteed under the Constitution.

Dave submitted that the Department of Education had issued guidelines for academic year 2021-2022, and according to it, uniform is not compulsory. Therefore, Karnataka GO dated February 5 could not supersede these guidelines, he added.

A battery of other senior advocates -- Rajeev Dhavan, Kapil Sibal, Colin Gonsalves, Devadatt Kamat, Sanjay Hegde, Salman Khurshid - also represented the petitioners before the apex court.

The Karnataka government was represented by Solicitor General Mehta and Advocate General Prabhuling K. Navadgi.