The Day a Schoolgirl Was Locked Out of Class
On February 3, 2022, a group of Muslim girls arrived at Government Pre-University College in Udupi, a city in southern India. They wore hijabs—the head covering worn by many Muslim women. The college stopped them at the gate. "Remove it or don't come in," they were told.
The girls refused. They were turned away. Days later, the state government issued an official order: every student in every state school and college in Karnataka must wear only the uniform set by the school. Since hijabs weren't part of that uniform, the girls couldn't attend class.
They went to court. And what they found there was something far more troubling than a locked gate: India's Supreme Court couldn't decide which side was right.
What the Supreme Court Actually Said
On October 13, 2022, two judges heard the case Aishat Shifa v. The State of Karnataka & Ors ([2022] 5 S.C.R. 426). Their job was simple: Is banning the hijab in state schools legal?
They reached opposite conclusions.
Judge Hemant Gupta sided with the school. His reasoning: the state funds these schools, so the state can decide what students wear. A uniform rule treats everyone equally. If you want to wear a hijab to school, he wrote, go to a private school that allows it. The government isn't banning hijabs everywhere—only in schools it pays for.
Gupta argued that wearing a hijab is a matter of personal choice or social custom, not a core religious requirement. Even if it were religious, he said, a secular school can regulate religious expression. That's part of maintaining fairness and a secular environment.
Judge Sudhanshu Dhulia completely disagreed. He wrote that the question shouldn't be whether hijab is essential to Islam. That misses the real issue. The real question is: Does forcing a teenage girl to remove her hijab at the school gate violate her basic dignity and personal freedom?
Yes, it does, Dhulia wrote. If a girl sincerely believes in wearing a hijab, and it harms no one, there's no good reason to ban it. Asking her to remove it before entering school violates her freedom of expression, her right to life and dignity, and her right to practice her religion.
Dhulia's conclusion was stark: "There shall be no restriction on the wearing of Hijab anywhere in schools and colleges in Karnataka."
Why It Matters That They Disagreed
When two judges on India's Supreme Court split 1-1, there's no final answer. The case gets sent to the Chief Justice of India, who assigns a larger bench—usually three, five, or more judges—to hear it again and settle the law.
Until then, the old ruling stands. Girls in Karnataka state schools are still barred from wearing hijabs, because the High Court (the lower court) had already sided with the government.
But the split tells you something important: India's top judges are genuinely divided on a fundamental question. This is not obvious. This is hard.
What the Two Judges Actually Disagreed On
Strip away the legal language and the fight is about power and respect.
Gupta believes the state's interest in creating a uniform, secular environment in public schools overrides an individual student's choice to wear religious dress. A government school is not a private space. It's a shared institution. Everyone must follow the same rules.
Dhulia believes that personal dignity and sincere belief come first. If wearing a hijab hurts no one, the state has no business banning it—even in a school it funds. He invoked the constitutional idea of "fraternity" and human dignity. You don't check your conscience at the school gate.
Gupta relied on constitutional provisions that allow the state to regulate secular matters and to pursue "social welfare and reform." Dhulia relied on constitutional protections of freedom of expression, the right to life and dignity, and freedom of religion.
Different judges, different values.
Why This Matters Beyond Hijabs
This case will eventually decide more than whether Muslim girls can wear hijabs. The same logic could apply to Sikh turbans, Hindu religious marks (tilaks), Christian crosses worn visibly, or any other symbol of faith in a government school.
The larger bench will have to answer: How much of your religious or personal identity can you bring into a government school? Does secular equality mean everyone looks the same? Or does it mean respecting everyone's differences?
The answer will affect millions of schoolchildren across India.
What Happens Now
The case hasn't been resolved. The Chief Justice of India will form a new, larger bench to rehear the arguments. When that bench rules, its decision will likely set the law for all of India, not just Karnataka.
That could take months or years. In the meantime, the girls who started this fight—and thousands of others like them—remain locked out.
What's clear is this: even India's highest judges don't agree on where to draw the line between a school's right to set rules and a student's right to be herself. That's a real tension. And how the bigger bench resolves it will echo through schools and classrooms for years.