Switzerland's prohibition on face-covering garments, including burqas and niqabs, took effect on January 1, 2025. Violators of the law face fines of up to 1,000 Swiss francs.
Exceptions are granted for planes, diplomatic premises, places of worship, health and safety reasons, native customs, weather conditions, artistic purposes, and personal protection with prior approval.
This measure, approved via a nationwide referendum in March 2021, adds to the global discourse on the regulation of religious and cultural attire.
China: Banned burqas, veils, and long beards in Xinjiang province in 2017 under anti-extremism measures.
Sri Lanka: Imposed a permanent ban on face veils in 2021, citing national security, following a temporary ban after the 2019 Easter bombings.
Other Countries: Nations such as Germany, Australia, Austria, Canada, Russia, and others have imposed varying degrees of restrictions on hijabs and face coverings.
Amna Bint Basheer v CBSE (2016): The Kerala High Court ruled that wearing a hijab is an essential religious practice but upheld the CBSE dress code, allowing additional safeguards.
Exceptions are granted for planes, diplomatic premises, places of worship, health and safety reasons, native customs, weather conditions, artistic purposes, and personal protection with prior approval.
This measure, approved via a nationwide referendum in March 2021, adds to the global discourse on the regulation of religious and cultural attire.
Global Context of Face-Covering Bans
France: The first European country to ban full-face veils in public in 2011, after banning religious symbols in schools in 2004.China: Banned burqas, veils, and long beards in Xinjiang province in 2017 under anti-extremism measures.
Sri Lanka: Imposed a permanent ban on face veils in 2021, citing national security, following a temporary ban after the 2019 Easter bombings.
Other Countries: Nations such as Germany, Australia, Austria, Canada, Russia, and others have imposed varying degrees of restrictions on hijabs and face coverings.
Hijab Restrictions in India
India has seen significant legal discourse surrounding the hijab:Amna Bint Basheer v CBSE (2016): The Kerala High Court ruled that wearing a hijab is an essential religious practice but upheld the CBSE dress code, allowing additional safeguards.
Fathima Thasneem v State of Kerala (2018): The Kerala High Court addressed the conflict between a Christian missionary school's dress code and the desire of students to wear headscarves. The court ruled in favour of the school's decision, stating that the "collective rights" of the school must take precedence over individual student rights.
Resham v State of Karnataka (2022): The Karnataka High Court validated the state government's hijab ban in government colleges, emphasizing uniformity and reasonable restrictions under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Constitutional Framework
The Indian Constitution ensures: Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28) under Fundamental Rights. Cultural and Educational Rights of Minorities (Articles 29 and 30), protecting unique identities.Arguments Supporting Hijab Bans
1) Uniformity and Discipline: Promotes equality in educational institutions.2) Gender Equality: Challenges patriarchal norms and promotes women’s freedom.
3) Integration: Reduces alienation caused by visible religious markers.
4) Public Safety: Deters misuse of anonymity, e.g., 2019 Easter bombings in Sri Lanka.
5) Reasonable Restrictions: Article 25 is subject to limitations, especially in public institutions.
Arguments Against Hijab Bans
1) Religious Freedom: Article 25 guarantees the right to practice and profess religion.2) Personal Liberty: Restricting attire infringes on women's autonomy and freedom of choice.
3) Educational Impact: Discourages girls from conservative backgrounds from attending schools, hindering empowerment.
Syllabus:
GS-I:
- Salient features of Indian Society and culture.
- Social empowerment, communalism, regionalism & secularism.