Unveiling Human Rights - Hijab Ban In India & Beyond

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Constitutional & Human Rights

Published: 2026-08-23T21:40:17.464027+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:05:07.81+00:00

UNVEILING HUMAN RIGHTS: HIJAB BAN IN INDIA &

BEYOND

Adarsh Agarwal, Jindal Global Law School

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the human rights perspective on the hijab ban controversy in India and around the world. The paper analyses the effects of legislation, policies, and legal precedents on the rights of women and girls who wear the hijab, as well as the discrimination and violence they may encounter in a wider context. “It explores the challenges of understanding gender equality, secularism, the right to religion, cultural rights, and freedom of expression concerning the hijab ban. The paper discusses the hijab as a symbol of empowerment for Muslim women and the consequences of the ban on their educational rights and freedom of expression. It examines the relationship among different human rights, such as religious freedom and women’s rights, emphasizing the significance of protecting autonomy and freedom of religion.

”1 The paper recognizes that authoritative human rights groups worldwide have complained about restrictions on religious expression through attire and the possibility of discrimination. The paper suggests that Indian authorities should prioritize protecting personal rights, cultural diversity, finding a balance between individual rights and other considerations, and engaging in dialogue with affected communities.

1 Manon Clayette, Human Rights of Women Wearing the Veil in Western Europe, UNHC, (Oct. 11, 2019),

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Women/WRGS/VeilinEuropereport.pdf 2 BBC News, Hijab verdict: India Supreme Court split on headscarf ban in classrooms, BBC News (Oct. 13, 2022), https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-63225351?cv=1.

Introduction In December 2021, several Muslim female students who were wearing hijabs encountered challenges when attempting to access the premises of an elementary school college in Udupi, Karnataka. The rationale behind their denial of entry was that the hijabs were deemed noncompliant with the college’s established dress code. In February, the Karnataka government issued a directive to colleges within the state, instructing them to adhere to the designated dress codes or establish clothing regulations that do not pose a risk to unity, equality, and public order. Subsequently, several educational organizations in Karnataka implemented measures to prohibit the entry of students wearing hijabs into their premises or educational institutions. Protesting Muslim women argued in court that the ban was discriminatory and violated their right to freedom of expression and religion.

They stated that the Indian constitution allowed them the freedom to dress however they wished and that their religion required them to cover their heads. 2 A comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the hijab ban entails navigating various legally

complex matters, including the interpretation of gender equality, secularism, the right to religion, cultural rights, and freedom of expression, among others. 3 Two judges in India’s supreme court disagreed over a ban on Muslim women wearing the hijab in schools and referred the sensitive matter to a larger bench of three or more judges. The government decree banning students from wearing attire that disrupts equality, integrity, and public order in schools and universities was upheld by the high court. 4 Muslim groups challenged the restriction before the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justice Gupta said the subject should be brought to a larger bench of more than two judges due to differing opinions. He rejected Muslim organizations’ appeal against the government directive. 2 BBC News, Hijab verdict: India Supreme Court split on headscarf ban in classrooms, BBC News (Oct.

13, 2022), https://www. bbc. co. uk/news/world-asia-india-63225351? cv=1. 3 Rashmi Venkatesan, What Does International Human Rights Law Say About the Hijab Ban? , The Wire, (Feb. , 2022), https://thewire. in/rights/hijab-ban-karnataka-international-human-rights-law 4 The Associated Press, A panel on India’s top court splits on school ban on Muslim headscarves, Georgia Public Broadcasting (Oct. 13, 2022), https://www. gpb. org/news/2022/10/13/panel-on-indias-top-court-splitson-school-ban-on-muslim-headscarves.

However, Justice Dhulia said entering vital religious practice was unnecessary and the state high court had erred. It was a matter of decision. He said, “Educating a child was my top priority. ” The petitioners said that Muslim girls could drop out of school if they couldn’t wear the headscarf in class. However, the state government stated its decree banning the headscarf in classrooms was “religion-neutral. ” The Karnataka state ban does not apply to other Indian states, but the Supreme Court verdict may set a precedent. The restriction may foster Islamophobia, according to rights activists. 5 How should one define the term "Hijab"? In simple terms, the hijab can be viewed as modest clothing that is consistent with conservative Islamic beliefs. According to numerous studies, modesty is a fundamental aspect of the lives of many Muslim women who wear the Hijab and veil.

6 Some contend that the hijab is not required in Islam. It is patriarchal in nature. This is supported by plenty of Quranic evidence as well. For example, the word hijab does not appear in the Quran. It refers to a term that represents a barrier or a curtain and is predominantly used in male contexts. 7 However, this is not the case for all Muslim women who wear the hijab. Many Muslim women view the hijab as an instrument of empowerment. Contrary to the widely held belief in Western culture, it is used to subjugate women. According to a survey, Muslim women who wear hijabs view them as a symbol of empowerment as opposed to a limitation of their potential. They wear the Hijab while attending classes, going to work, raising children, and having a nice time.

In a nation characterized by a constitutional framework incorporating the principle of secularism and enshrining fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression, the freedom to adhere to any religious belief, and the entitlement to privacy, the responsibility of manifesting one’s religious inclinations rests with individual citizens. The ban on wearing the Hijab in Karnataka has major repercussions for the educational rights and freedom of 5 The Associated Press, A panel on India’s top court splits on school ban on Muslim headscarves, (Oct. 13, 2022), https://www. npr. org/2022/10/13/1128624291/a-panel-on-indias-top-court-splits-on-school-ban-onmuslim-headscarves. 6 Silvasahu, An Analysis Of Hijab Ban In India, Legal Services India, https://legalserviceindia. com/legal/article- 8487-an-analysis-of-hijab-ban-in-india.

html 7 Rakhi Bose, Hijab Ban And Muslim Women’s Right To Education: ‘Reform Needed, Not Coercion’, (Jan. 25, 2023), https://www. outlookindia. com/national/hijab-ban-and-muslim-women-right-to-education-reformneeded-not-coercion-news-228667

expression of Muslim women. 8 Following the implementation of the hijab prohibition in Karnataka, a considerable number of female students have discontinued their education within the state. 9 Does Hijab ban violate women’s freedom and educational rights? The State’s ban on the Hijab violates “Article 21-A of the Constitution of India”10, which ensures equal access to free and necessary public education. Courts must consider this prohibition in its overall setting. The right to education must be weighed within the context of the present political situation. Since Indian Courts have interpreted religious matters and adjudicated religious conflicts like any other major legal matter, they must take into account the economic, social, and political background behind it to ensure that justice is actually done and not merely appeared to be done.

Because of the disproportionately high rate of literacy among Muslim women, the courts should consider whether the Hijab prohibition would deter them from enrolling in schools. The High Court’s wording was particularly problematic because it suggested that students who wore the hijab would cause an inconvenience to the academic environment. Courts’ remarks like this erode minority communities’ trust in the courts to uphold their rights and prevent abuse by the state. 11 For girls from economically disadvantaged dwellings, hijab is a multi-edged sword. Their parents are extremely traditionalist, uninformed, and subject to social influences. But unfortunately, all parties have politicized this issue to their interests. 12 Does IHRL protect women who wear the hijab or other forms of face/head covering?

The right to freedom of religion is not independent but is interconnected with other fundamental human rights, including the right to employment, the right to education, and the right to full

8 John Blake, Today in Islamophobia: October 10, 2022, Bridge Initiative (Oct. 10, 2022),

https://bridge.georgetown.edu/today_islamophobia/today-in-islamophobia-october-10-2022/ 9 Rakhi Bose, Hijab Ban And Muslim Women’s Right To Education: ‘Reform Needed, Not Coercion’, (Jan. 25, 2023), https://www.outlookindia.com/national/hijab-ban-and-muslim-women-right-to-education-reformneeded-not-coercion-news-228667

10 INDIA CONST. art. 21 A.

11 Medha Srivastava, The Hijab Ban in India has nothing to do with Secularism (Mar. 16, 2022),

https://intr2dok.vifarecht.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/mir_derivate_00011967/The_Hijab_Ban_in_India _has_nothing_to_do_with_Secularism.pdf 12 Rakhi Bose, Hijab Ban And Muslim Women’s Right To Education: ‘Reform Needed, Not Coercion’, (Jan. 25, 2023), https://www.outlookindia.com/national/hijab-ban-and-muslim-women-right-to-education-reformneeded-not-coercion-news-228667

participation in society. 13 When Muslim women are required to adhere to their religious beliefs in their attire, it can hinder their ability to exercise their rights to work, pursue education, and engage in various aspects of public life. 14 This is because they may encounter discriminatory practices or encounter difficulties in finding employment or educational opportunities because of their religious identity. Some Muslim women may feel compelled to remove the hijab to pursue various opportunities because of societal expectations. Conversely, others may choose to limit their involvement to the private sphere, suppressing their potential to actively contribute to the advancement of a more inclusive and improved society. The hijab is not only a religious symbol but also a fundamental component of the identity of Muslim women and a privilege to publicly express religious views.

Hijab prohibition practices should never be viewed as a step toward the emancipation of women, but as an extension of long-standing patriarchal customs that establish how women ought to dress and where they are accepted in a society based on their physical appearance. France, along with India and most of the world’s nations, has joined and ratified the Convention. This means that it is required by law to respect, protect, and execute the Covenant’s provisions within its territory. At a minimum, it cannot violate them. The wearing of a burqa or complete face covering is protected as religious freedom under the IHRL, according to these findings and the consensus. Keep in mind that the current Karnataka prohibition encompasses not only face veils and hijabs, which are merely headscarves.

15 Similar concerning issues around the world The French parliament passed a bill banning face coverings in public in September 2010, ostensibly to curb the prevalence of burqas in public spaces among Muslims. A bill with identical limits was passed by the Belgian lower house of parliament in April, but it has yet to be approved by the Senate. The Dutch coalition government agreement from October 2010 contained a plan to outlaw the wearing of face coverings. Several other nations have also

13 Comment, Freedom of religion or belief, (May 18, 2011),

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/droi/dv/201/201105/20110526_409digestfor b_en.pdf.

14 Tore Lindholm, Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief: A Deskbook, SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-017-5616-7. 15 Rashmi Venkatesan, What Does International Human Rights Law Say About the Hijab Ban? The Wire, (Feb., 2022), https://thewire.in/rights/hijab-ban-karnataka-international-human-rights-law

proposed similar nationwide laws, such as Italy, the United Kingdom, and Denmark; meanwhile, a growing number of governments in Belgium, Spain, and Italy have either already implemented or are seriously considering local bans. 16 The debate brings up difficult issues about the connection between several fundamental rights, such as religious freedom and women’s rights. It raises concerns regarding how, when, and where the state might lawfully limit the wearing of religious attire and the exhibition of religious symbols, among other issues related to religion and traditional activities. Potential impact on human rights Human rights law safeguards the freedom of religion, which includes the right to worship, observe, practice, and teach in private and public.

States are required by human rights law to protect the right to a private life, which encompasses the right to liberty, such as the freedom of deciding what to wear, both in private and in public. States must guarantee the right to equality or non-discrimination, particularly that there is no discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation. Lastly, states must safeguard the rights of religious minorities within their territorial boundaries. Human rights legislation recognizes a few rights as absolute, including religious freedom and the right to autonomy. To restrict these rights, governments must provide compelling evidence that doing so is necessary to protect people’s lives, property, health, or morality. For a government to set this bar so high is uncommon.

Being aware of the alternate viewpoint that wearing a full-body veil is not a religious practice recognized or commanded by Islam but rather a cultural practice with roots in specific regions. The state has no interest in deciding what a religious sign means; what matters is whether a person views the symbol as a representation of his or her religious conviction. Atheists and dissenters within religious majorities are likewise protected by the right to freedom of religion and belief. The state has no right under international human rights law to prohibit or restrict the free exercise of religion or any aspect of religion. 17 16 “You Dress According to Their Rules”, (Mar. 10, 2011), https://www. hrw. org/node/256179/printable/print.

17 Id. at 16.

How do authoritative human rights groups around the world react? Restrictions on the wearing of veils and headscarves have been questioned by human rights organizations worldwide. Concerns were voiced by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child that a blanket ban on religious symbols in schools could compromise children’s best interests and their right to an education. Many people feel the Supreme Court did not give enough consideration to the importance of states having compelling reasons for bans on religious dress, the effects these restrictions have on the people involved, and the discriminatory effects of bans that disproportionately target women and girls who choose to wear headscarves. At times, the Court has made its decision without first requesting the government to explain its restrictions.

18 Human rights authorities and processes at the UN consider restrictions on the right to publicly display one’s religion through one’s appearance as being fairly stringent. The right to religious expression is protected under “Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”19, except “to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. ” Human Rights Committee General Comment 22 states that any restrictions placed on individuals’ freedoms must be necessary and proportional to the legitimate necessity they are meant to address. Discriminatory intent or practice in the imposition or application of restrictions is prohibited. 20 Concerns have been raised by UN human rights procedures that bans on religious symbols could amount to discrimination.

“Human rights treaty bodies have called for an examination of how bans on the veil or other religious symbols affect the rights of individuals, including those to equal treatment, privacy, freedom of expression, and participation in government. ” The idea of worship, as defined by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, contains the exhibition of symbols, observance and practice may include the wearing of distinctive attire or head coverings.

18 Author, Right To Religion In France, The Law Brigade Publishers (India) (May 24, 2017),

https://thelawbrigade.com/general-research/right-to-religion-in-france/ 19 UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations.

20 Manon Clayette, Human Rights of Women Wearing the Veil in Western Europe, UNHC, (Oct. 11, 2019),

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Women/WRGS/VeilinEuropereport.pdf

The Hijab Ban Controversy: A Desired Approach by Indian Authorities Different countries and communities around the world may have varying degrees of tolerance or intolerance for the hijab. Human rights, individual agency, and cultural diversity should all influence how we tackle this problem. I can provide a picture of possible actions the government could take. Protection of personal rights and freedom of religion: Governments ought to emphasize the protection of individual rights, especially the right to freedom of religion and the right to exhibit one’s religious convictions through the wearing of religious apparel, such as the hijab. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,21 approved by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and belief for all people everywhere.

22 Increasing cultural diversity and acceptance: The government should encourage cultural diversity instead of discouraging it. Many Muslim women’s sense of religious and cultural identity is tied to their choice to wear the headscarf. A more accepting and tolerant society can be promoted when people are free to publicly express their cultural and religious beliefs. Cultural acceptance helps bring people together and makes it easier for people from all walks of life to succeed. Balancing individual rights and other factors: The government should find a middle ground between protecting citizens’ rights and ensuring their safety and the equality of the genders. Authorities may need to impose reasonable restrictions if there are valid concerns connected to security or individuals’ autonomy and wellbeing.

While limitations may be necessary, they should be reasonable and based on concrete information. Dialogue and involvement with affected communities: Authorities should have an open conversation with affected communities, especially Muslim 21 UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III), Article 18.

22 Id. at 21.

women who choose to wear the hijab, to better understand their viewpoints, concerns, and needs. Establishing a decision-making procedure that allows for the participation of everyone with an interest is crucial. This can aid in the formation of policies that are well-informed, empathetic, and sensitive to the various perspectives within society. Conclusion: In concluding the debate on the hijab ban, it is important to acknowledge the issue’s complexity and the various perspectives involved. Respecting human rights entails upholding the rights of all individuals, such as freedom of religion and expression of cultural identity. It is important to prioritize the safety and equality of all citizens, regardless of their religious or cultural background.

To achieve balance, authorities should have an open dialogue with affected communities, including Muslim women who wear the hijab, to understand their viewpoints, concerns, and needs. This can help create policies that are informed, empathetic, and considerate of various perspectives in society. The debate on the hijab ban should prioritize respecting human rights, promoting cultural diversity, and ensuring the safety and equality of all citizens keeping aside political agendas.