Article 25 of the Indian constitution guarantees all Indian citizens the freedom of conscience, as well as the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion.
Religion is a matter of belief and faith. And, every citizen in this country has the absolute right to practise their religion in whatever manner they want to, provided it doesn’t hurt public safety, morality or health.
If students and teachers are allowed to apply a tilak, wear a mouli (sacred thread tied around the wrist) or a cross, why are they not allowed to wear a hijab?
Instead of protecting constitutional guarantees, the restriction on hijab shows the selective outrage of the government towards the community. But, we need to remind everyone of the fact that India is a secular country.
In the case of State of Karnataka versus Dr Praveen Bhai Togadia, the Supreme Court of India (SC) held that secularism means that the state has no religion, but every citizen must get an assurance from the state that they have the protection of law to freely profess, practice and propagate their religion, and freedom of conscience.
The Court Is Not Infallible
I strongly disagree with the verdict passed by the honourable High Court of Karnataka. The court stated that “wearing a hijab is not an essential religious practice”, but as far as Article 25 is concerned, it states that religious practice is based on the individual’s belief or faith.
Wearing the hijab is an integral part of the culture of Islam. And so, such decision is a violation of the fundamental rights of thousands of young Muslim girls and students.
Even in the case of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj versus state of Rajasthan, the SC held that the test to determine the question of deciding what is an integral part of a religion is whether it is regarded as integral by the community following that religion.
Why The “Essential Practice” Test Is Problematic
Further, justice DY Chandrachud of the SC stated in the Sabarimala case that the “essential religious practice” test is problematic.
How is the court to determine what an “essential practice” is? Should it “rely on religious leaders”? Should it “call for evidence”? Should judges “pursue these questions on the basis of their own research”?
So, we need to understand and respect the faith of an individual. I, being a Hindu, follow my religion in a different way from my Hindu neighbour. Why? Because, the constitution gives me the right to follow and express belief in my own way.