Relevant sections on hijab differences
‘Is the hijab too much in democracy?’ (From the judgment of Justice Sudhamshu Dhulia)
∙ Is it too much to demand hijab in democracy? How is this once morest public order, morality or health?
∙ The right to wear hijab does not end at the school gate. It is the individual’s choice.
∙ The action of the Karnataka High Court which evaluated the rights of the petitioners solely on the issue of whether the hijab is an essential religious practice is not correct.
∙ Courts should intervene when constitutional boundaries are violated.
∙ Hijab may be the reason some conservative families allow girls to go to school. In such cases the hijab is her ticket to education.
∙ How can a girl wearing hijab in the classroom become a law and order problem?. On the contrary, it would be a sign of a mature society to try to embrace it.
∙ It is time to learn to celebrate this diversity and not panic regarding the country’s diversity.
‘Religion is private, has no place in school’ (from Justice Hemant Gupta’s judgment)
∙ Religion is a private matter. It has no place in a government run secular school.
∙ The government has the right to regulate educational institutions run at government expense.
∙ Uniform fosters a sense of equality and unity among students.
∙ There is a right to education, but that right cannot be said to be used according to one’s own will.
∙ If a student is not willing to compromise on the rule of not wearing religious symbols, there is nothing wrong with the school’s decision to ban that child.
∙ A decision taken by a state government cannot be said to be arbitrary because central schools allow religious symbols. It is up to each state to decide.
∙ Students are free to wear religious symbols outside the school. However, in the school, students should feel that they are the same.
Both judges referred to earlier judgments
New Delhi ∙ In the judgment of Justice Sudhamshu Dhulia, the case (Bejoy Emmanuel case) in which 3 Jehovah’s Witness students were expelled from the school for saying that singing the National Anthem was once morest religious belief was mentioned. He said that the situation of the children in that case is the same as that of the students who are petitioners in the Hijab case today.
On August 11, 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not disrespectful to not sing along with the national anthem and it is enough to stand up. The court has judged that the fundamental rights of the students, including religious observance, have been violated.
Justice Hemant Gupta referred to the Supreme Court case related to Sabarimala women’s entry. Matters related to religion and religious practices were mainly considered in that case. He also pointed out that the constitutional right to freedom of expression was not the main issue.
English Summary: Judges statement on hijab issue
