Six students were arbitrarily denied entry into their classrooms in December 2021 in Udupi. The Education Department, Government of Karnataka, issued a misleading order in February, indicating that the hijab can be restricted in some educational institutions. When some of the affected students approached the court, in Resham v. State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court issued an interim order and a final verdict that upheld a prohibition on the hijab. Even though the verdict does not issue a directive to institutions to impose a sweeping ban with immediate effect, in one stroke, educational institutions across the state banned the hijab. Hijab-wearing Muslim women students were forced to choose between continuing their education and wearing the hijab.
Since December 2021, students across Karnataka have faced violations of their fundamental rights, specifically, their right to education, right to dignity, right to freedom of expression, right to privacy, right to non-discrimination, and right against arbitrary state action.
PUCL-Karnataka undertook a study to investigate the impact of the imposed ban on the students and examine the role of authorities, administrative officials and police officials. Through conversations with students as well as authorities, and an analysis of events that transpired, it becomes visibly clear that Muslim women students were not only actively prevented from accessing their right to education, but also bore the brunt of a climate of hate, hostility and misinformation. Students have faced humiliation and harassment in their own classrooms at the hands of their faculty, college administration and classmates. The ] report documents how vigilante groups of Hindutva organizations carried out a vilification campaign against hijab wearing students and how the inaction of the government and police gave implicit encouragement to these fundamentalist forces.
Students from all 5 districts shared that they have been forced to make a choice between wearing the hijab and pursuing their education. They said that this compulsion to choose was a humiliating experience because they do consider the hijab and education as two integral parts of their lives. Neither were they given notice before this change in rules, nor were any members of the Muslim community consulted, before the Education Department issued the GO, implying a sudden ban on the hijab.
Most students shared that they had been wearing the hijab since they were around ten years old. Almost every student had a different answer when asked about their relationship with their hijab. Some said that it was a part of their body when they are in public, some said that the hijab symbolises their personal relationship with their God. Some said that the hijab was a way in which they wanted to express their identity as Muslims and others said that they felt naked without the hijab.
Muslim women students were forced to remove their hijabs inside classrooms, in their examination centres and even outside college gates while the media, the police and their own college faculty coerced them to do so. Students and parents shared their experiences of repeatedly requesting authorities to grant them permission to continue their studies, and the distress they experienced when their struggles went in vain.
With lost friendships, experiences of harassment, humiliation and distress and a denial of their right to education, Muslim women students, in their teens, continue to fight against odds and pursue education.
The report was released on January 9, 2023, to highlight the series of continuing violations of the rights of Muslim students, and draw attention to the failures and unlawful actions of the police, the district administration as well as college authorities. The report also reveals various socio-cultural factors, including biases, prejudices and stereotypes against the Muslim community, especially women, which enabled the escalation of a climate of hate.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia’s judgement is imbued with a constitutional concern for the rights of girl students to equal access to education. He holds that discipline cannot be at the cost of dignity and autonomy. While he set aside the Karnataka High Court verdict and quashed the Government Order of February 5, it remains a split verdict.
(The writer is a member of People’s Union of Civil Liberties- Karnataka)
