In coastal Karnataka, a debate over the hijab, or headgear, worn by Muslim females has erupted.

Even while a political slugfest over the communally sensitive topic rages on, echoes of the dispute can be heard in other regions of Karnataka.

Several political heavyweights, including Mehbooba Mufti and Rahul Gandhi, have condemned the incident on social media.

How did it all begin?

Six female students from the Government PU College for Girls in Udupi were not permitted to attend courses while wearing a hijab.

On December 31, 2021, the students protested, stating that the institution had denied them access to classrooms for the previous 15 days.

Raghupathi Bhat, MLA for Udupi BJP, who chairs the college's development committee, met with parents and other stakeholders.

He instructed pupils to adhere to the college's dress code in the classroom. Six pupils elected to remain absent from class.

The pupils filed a writ suit in the Karnataka High Court, as well as a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission.

What prompted other educational institutions to become involved?

Following this event, a number of males from Kundapur's Government Pre University College wore saffron shawls to class in protest of certain girls wearing hijab.

Kundapura MLA Haladi Srinivas Shetty met with parents and advised students to follow the college's dress code until the government made a final judgement on the matter.

The MLA stated that over the past five days, some female college students had been wearing hijab to class.

The female students, on the other side, have contended that they cannot be compelled to leave the college because of a 'sudden change in the dress code' to prohibit hijab.

To counteract the hijab-wearing females, numerous Hindu guys have appeared wearing saffron shawls, but they, too, have been prevented from entering schools.

Such incidents have been recorded at various colleges in the coastal Karnataka region of Udupi.

When students from IDSG Government First Grade College came in Chikkamagaluru wearing blue shawls, the row took a new turn. They raised their voices in favour of Muslim females and screamed Jai Bhim slogans. They stated that wearing a headscarf in college as part of religious practise was acceptable.

What is the government's position?

The Karnataka Government issued an order requiring students to adhere to the uniform/dress code established by College Development Committees.

B.C. Nagesh, Minister of Primary and Secondary Education, stated that laws enacted under the Karnataka Educational Acts of 2013 and 2018 have authorised educational institutions to prescribe uniforms for school/PU college students.

Based on these guidelines, the department published a circular and urged students to respect consistent norms imposed by institutions until the High Court announced its decision.

Though uniforms are not required in colleges, College Development Committees, generally led by local MLAs, have insisted on a dress code, including the prohibition of hijabs, in Udupi and other areas.

What did the court have to say?

On Wednesday, while hearing two petitions on behalf of Muslim women demonstrators, Justice Krishna Dixit said the case should be moved to a bigger court.

"Given the complexity of the issues being addressed, the court is of the considered opinion that the documents be placed in the hands of the chief justice to determine if a bigger bench may be formed in the subject matter," stated the judge.

One of the two petitions contends that the right to choose what to wear is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian constitution. The other calls into question the legality of a recent state government dress code order for educational institutions that prohibits the wearing of headscarves and hijabs.

Their lawyer argued that the government's order prohibiting the wearing of the hijab was both unconstitutional and illegal, and he also asked the court to issue an interim order allowing the students to attend classes ahead of exams.

According to Live Law, Justice Dixit also stated that the petitioners could seek interim relief after the chief justice decides on the formation of a larger bench.