The Karnataka High Court ruled on Tuesday that wearing Hijab is not an essential religious practice, holding up a previously instated ban and rejecting five petitions. The transcript of the oral order dictated by the court lists four questions and their answers.

The questions and answers cover the broad elements on which Tuesday’s judgment was based, including the prescription of school uniforms and headscarves being a part of essential religious practices.

Also Read: Karnataka hijab row: What Indian courts have said on the headscarf

The dispute began in January when a government-run school in Karnataka’s Udupi district barred students wearing hijabs from entering classrooms, triggering protests by Muslims. The petitions were filed in Karnataka courts to challenge this ban.

Here are the questions and answers released by the court:

QUESTION: Whether wearing Hijab/headscarf is part of essential religious practice in the Islamic faith (and) is protected under Article 25 of the constitution?

ANSWER: “We are of the considered opinion wearing of Hijab by Muslim women does not form a part of essential religious practice in Islamic faith.”

QUESTION: Whether prescription of school uniform is not legally permissible as being violative of petitioners fundamental rights inter alia guaranteed under 19 (1) (a), that is freedom of expression and Article 21 that is privacy, of the constitution?

ANSWER: We are of the considered opinion that prescription of the school uniform is only a reasonable restriction constitutionally permissible, which the students can not object to.

Also Read: Hijab case: CM Bommai appeals for peace, says all have to abide by the court orders

QUESTION: Whether Government order dated 05.02.2022 apart from being incompetent is issued without application of mind and is manifestly arbitrary and therefore violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution?

ANSWER: The Government has the power to the impugned Government order dated 05.02.2022 and no case is made out of its invalidation.

QUESTION: Whether any case is made out of Writ Petition 2416 of 2022, for issuance of a direction for initiating disciplinary inquiry against respondent number 6 to 14 and issuance of a writ of quo warranto against respondent number 15 and 16.

ANSWER: No case is made out in WP 2146 of 2022 for issuance of a direction for intimating disciplinary inquiry against respondent number 16 to 14. The prayer for issuance of writ of quo warranto against respondent number 15 and 16 is rejected and not maintainable.