Karnataka government withdraws 2022 hijab ban order in educational institutes, permits 'limited' religious symbols

The Karnataka state government issued a fresh dress code order withdrawing its February 2022 order that had effectively barred students from wearing hijab an...

What Happened

The Karnataka state government issued a fresh dress code order withdrawing its February 2022 order that had effectively barred students from wearing hijab and other religious symbols in government and private educational institutions.
The new order permits students to wear hijab, rudraksha, sacred thread (janivara), headgear (peeta), turban, and scarf alongside prescribed school uniforms across government schools, aided and private educational institutions, and pre-university colleges.
The withdrawal follows public protests triggered by an April 2026 incident in which a student's sacred thread was allegedly cut at a school and a hijab was removed during the Common Entrance Test (CET).
The original February 5, 2022 order had directed students to follow uniforms prescribed by College Development Committees (CDCs), which many institutions had interpreted as excluding hijab.
The Karnataka High Court had upheld the 2022 order in Resham v. State of Karnataka (March 15, 2022), holding that wearing hijab was not an essential religious practice protected under Article 25.

Static Topic Bridges

Articles 25–28: Right to Freedom of Religion

Articles 25–28 in Part III of the Constitution form the constitutional framework for freedom of religion in India.

Article 25(1): All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion — subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of Part III.
Article 25(2): The State may regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political, or other secular activity associated with religious practice, and may provide for social welfare and reform.
Article 26: Every religious denomination has the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its own affairs in matters of religion, and own and acquire property.
Article 27: No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes for promotion of any particular religion.
Article 28: Prohibits religious instruction in institutions wholly maintained out of State funds; permits it in State-aided institutions with a consent clause.

Article 25 is available to all "persons" (not just citizens) and encompasses freedom of conscience — the inner freedom — as well as external profession, practice, and propagation.
The grounds for restriction under Article 25(1) are: public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights.
Article 25 is subject to Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) and other Part III provisions.

Connection to this news: The 2022 Karnataka order and its withdrawal both engage Article 25 — the core question is whether the State's power to prescribe uniforms under Article 25(2) could override the individual's right to practise religion under Article 25(1).

The Essential Religious Practice (ERP) Test

The ERP Test is the judicially crafted standard for determining which religious practices receive constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26. Only practices that are "essential" to a religion — i.e., without which the religion would be fundamentally altered — are protected.

Origin: Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954) — the "Shirur Mutt case" — where the Supreme Court first articulated that only essential and integral religious practices are protected under Articles 25 and 26.
Test: A court asks whether the practice is so fundamental to the religion that its removal would change the religion's essential character.
Applied broadly: In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar (1958), cow sacrifice on Bakr-Eid was held not to be an essential practice of Islam. In Acharya Jagdishwaranand v. Commissioner of Police (1984), Tandava processions with weapons were held not essential to Ananda Marga.
The ERP Test has been criticised for allowing courts to determine what is "essential" to a religion, effectively placing judicial authority over theological questions.
Nine-judge constitution bench: The Supreme Court has referred broader questions about the ERP Test and its interaction with Article 14 (equality) to a larger bench in the ongoing Sabarimala reference (2026 hearings).

Connection to this news: The Karnataka High Court in Resham v. State of Karnataka (2022) applied the ERP Test and held that the wearing of hijab is not an essential religious practice in Islam and therefore not protected under Article 25. The withdrawal of the 2022 order by the state government does not reverse this judicial holding; it is an executive policy decision.

Resham v. State of Karnataka (2022): The Karnataka High Court Judgment

A full bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed all petitions challenging the February 5, 2022 Government Order on March 15, 2022.

Case: Resham v. State of Karnataka, WP No. 2347/2022.
Holding: (1) Wearing of hijab is not an essential religious practice in Islam protected under Article 25. (2) The prescription of school uniforms by College Development Committees is a constitutionally permissible reasonable restriction under Article 25(2). (3) The Government Order did not violate Articles 14, 19, or 25.
Petitioners' arguments: Hijab is an essential practice of Islam; its removal violates Articles 19(1)(a) (expression), 21 (dignity), and 25 (religion).
The Supreme Court, in October 2022, delivered a split verdict (2–2) in the appeal, with one judge upholding and one partially modifying the High Court judgment, necessitating reference to a larger bench. As of 2026, a final Supreme Court ruling remains pending.

Connection to this news: The Karnataka government's withdrawal of the 2022 order is an executive action. The legal question of whether hijab is an essential religious practice — and whether a state can bar it — remains sub judice before the Supreme Court.

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986): Conscience Cannot Be Compelled

This landmark Supreme Court case established that the State cannot compel an individual to violate sincerely held religious beliefs.

Facts: Three Jehovah's Witness students refused to sing the national anthem, citing their religious belief that singing it amounted to worship — contrary to their faith. They stood respectfully during the anthem.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that the students' expulsion violated Article 25 (freedom of conscience). Compelling a person to act contrary to their conscientiously held religious beliefs is unconstitutional.
Reasoning: The right under Article 25 includes the right not to actively participate in a religious or quasi-religious observance one conscientiously objects to. Standing respectfully while not singing was sufficient demonstration of respect and caused no breach of public order.
Significance: The case distinguishes between passive respect (constitutionally required) and compelled active participation (unconstitutional).

Connection to this news: Bijoe Emmanuel reinforces that the constitutional protection of conscience is broad. The question of whether barring religious dress constitutes compelled denial of religious practice draws on the same framework.

Key Facts & Data

Karnataka's original restrictive dress code order: February 5, 2022.
Karnataka High Court upheld the order (Resham v. State of Karnataka): March 15, 2022.
Karnataka High Court's holding: Hijab is not an essential religious practice under Article 25.
Supreme Court appeal: Split 2-2 verdict (October 2022); referred to a larger bench — final ruling pending.
Karnataka's fresh order (2026): Permits hijab, rudraksha, janivara, turban, scarf alongside school uniforms.
Articles 25–28: Fundamental right to freedom of religion (Part III of the Constitution).
ERP Test origin: Shirur Mutt case (1954).
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986): State cannot compel violation of conscientiously held religious beliefs.
Applicable institutions: Government schools, aided and private schools, and pre-university colleges in Karnataka.