Karnataka HC cites US college student’s term paper on hijab in its verdict
The Karnataka High Court has raised eyebrows with its choice to cite a term paper — written by a college student as an assignment — in its verdict dismissing the petitions by Muslim girl students to wear the hijab inside classrooms. The Karnataka High Court ruled that hijab is not an essential practice for Muslim women under Islam, and to reach this conclusion, the High Court cited translations of the Quran, landmark judgments, previous verdicts on wearing of the hijab and surprisingly, this term paper written by Sara Slininger, when she was a history major at the Eastern Illinois University college.
In fact, the Karnataka High Court starts its verdict with a paragraph quoted from the 2014 term paper titled ‘Veiled Women: Hijab, Religion, and Cultural Practice,’ which was a part of Sara’s course on Early Islamic History in the fall semester.
The High Court has cited her paper twice in the order — one part about the complexities of the hijab, and second, that covering the head is not a practice exclusive to Islam. Interestingly, one paragraph cited from the paper by the Karnataka High Court says that the history of the hijab is a complex one and “while some women veil themselves because of pressure, there are some who wear the hijab by choice.” This citation also hinted that the Karnataka High Court may delve into the complexities of wearing the hijab. But if one looks at the final verdict of the High Court, this quote by Sara Slininger feels out of place.
Karnataka HC order
“In this case, this material (Sara’s paper) was used to come to a conclusion that was contrary to what the material may indicate. There is no link between the first paragraph and the conclusion. The first quotation just hangs there,” says Arvind Narain, an advocate in Bengaluru.
Throughout the order, the Karnataka High Court has rejected submissions by the petitioner students on the grounds of authenticity, legal backing, or lack of credentials of the cited material. However, the High Court does not give reasons for citing a term paper by college student Sara Slininger — who also uses multiple external citations in her paper — nor does it provide any credentials of the author. All we know of Sara is that she wrote the paper when she was a history major at this University.
Karnataka HC order
This comes as a glaring contradiction, as the High Court in the same order gave an elaborate justification for banking on the translation of the Quran by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and extensively quoting from it. This is the translation that the Supreme Court also referred to in the Shayara Bano case which criminalised triple talaq. The court said that during the course of the hearing, around eight versions of different authors on the Quran were cited but “there being a broad unanimity at the Bar as to its authenticity & reliability,” the court picked this scripture. “The speculative and generalising mind of this author views the verses of the scriptures in their proper perspective. He provides the unifying principles that underlie. His monumental work has systematic completeness and perfection of form,” the court added.
So while the High Court has substantiated citing one piece of material, it gives no reasons as to why it selected Sara’s paper in the judgment — especially when it is not in line with what the court finally held, and when it uses other citations. Moreover, the paper cited does not add any value to the judgment.
“They use text that seems to indicate a progressive line of thinking but draw very regressive conclusions from the text. They use texts that are progressive but don’t follow it up,” Arvind adds.
Legal experts have also noted that in its order, the High Court has also used landmark judgments that have upheld fundamental rights that have been used to deny students their rights. The judgment also seems to force students to choose between their fundamental rights — Muslim girl students who want to wear the hijab will now be forced to choose between the right to education or their right to freedom of wearing a hijab and the right to religion.
The High Court also cites the landmark Puttaswamy verdict, which held that the citizens have a right to privacy, and adds that it has “no quarrel with the petitioners’ essential proposition that what one desires to wear is a facet of one’s autonomy and that one’s attire is one’s expression.” However, the court added that this is subject to reasonable regulations. The Court also quoted the Sabarimala judgment to speak about what an essential religious practice is, but glosses over the fact that the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment held women’s fundamental rights as supreme.
"If you are quoting the Sabarimala judgment to deprive women of their rights, it is a bit outrageous," says Arvind.
The High Court has also not commented upon a student petitioner's submission that Muslim girls are being singled out by the government order, that they are being discriminated against when ordinarily items like bangles and dupattas are allowed. Senior advocate Ravivarma Kumar had submitted that if a Sikh wearing a turban can be allowed in the Army, why can’t a student wearing a headdress be allowed inside a class — however, the High Court has not commented on this at all.
These aspects have now been cited in the pleas before the Supreme Court which have appealed against the Karnataka High Court order. The Supreme Court has said that it will consider hearing the pleas after the Holi vacation.