# AISHAT SHIFA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 5 S.C.R. 426
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-10-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7095 of 2022
- **Bench:** Hemant Gupta, Sudhanshu Dhulia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/aishat-shifa-v-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-36430
- **Pages:** 153

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950: Arts.14, 19 (1), 21 and 25 - Right
to wear Hijab in Educational Institution - Freedom of Religion -
Essential Religious Practice (ERP) - Right to Choice - On
03.02.2022, petitioners, students of Government Pre-University
College in Udupi were stopped at their college gate and told to
take off their Hijab before entering the college - As they refused to
take off Hijab, they were denied entry in college by the administration
- On 05.02.2022, Government Order (G.O.) was issued regarding
'a dress code for student of all schools and colleges of the state'
under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 - The order mandated
that the uniform prescribed by the College Development Committee
or the Board of Management should be worn - Since Hijab was not
made part of the 'uniform', the petitioners were denied entry in
their college - Petitioners challenged the G.O. before High Court -
High Court held that wearing of Hijab by Muslim women does not
form a part of ERP in Islamic faith and that prescription of School
uniform places only a reasonable restriction which is constitutionally
permissible and cannot be objected to by the students - Hence
instant appeal - Per Hemant Gupta, J.: The constitution of the College
Development Committee is not in conflict with any of the provisions
of the Act, 1983 - The said G. O. does not run contrary to any of
the provisions of the Act and the rules framed there under - The
executive was well within its jurisdiction to ensure that the students
come in the uniform prescribed by the College Development
Committee - The object of the G.O. was to ensure that there is
parity amongst the students in terms of uniform - the purpose was
only to promote uniformity and encourage a secular environment
in the schools, which is in tune with the right guaranteed under
Art.14 - Art.25(2)(a) gives primacy to laws made by competent
legislature for regulation of secular aspects and Art.25(2)(b) gives
primacy to "social welfare" and "reform'' - If a particular practice/
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 426
426
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
427
belief/part of any religion is in existence and is found to be subjected
to either "social welfare" and "reform", such right will have to
give way to "social welfare" and "reform" - The religious belief
cannot be carried to a secular school maintained out of State funds
- It is open to the students to carry their faith in a school which
permits them to wear Hijab or any other mark - The right under
Art.19(1)(a) as a right of expression to dress as per one's own will,
however, is also subject to reasonable restrictions under sub-clause
(2) of Art.19 - None of the fundamental rights is absolute, curtailment
of the right is permissible by following due procedure which can
withstand the test of reasonableness - Students have no right to be
in the school in violation of the mandate of the uniform prescribed
under the Statute and the Rules - If students choose not to attend
classes due to the uniform that has been prescribed, it is a voluntary
act of such students and cannot be said to be in violation of Art.29
by the State - G.O. cannot be said to be against the ethic of
secularism or to the objective of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983
- Per Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Dissenting): The question of ERP was not
at all relevant in the determination of the dispute before the Court -
Instead of straightaway taking the ERP route, the High Court could
have first examined whether the restriction imposed by the school
or the G.O on wearing a Hijab, were valid restrictions or whether
these restrictions are hit by the Doctrine of Proportionality - The
entire exercise done by the High Court, in evaluating the rights of
the petitioners only on the touchstone of ERP, was incorrect - If the
belief is sincere, and it harms no one else, there can be no justifiable
reasons for banning Hijab in a classroom - Asking a pre university
schoolgirl to take off her Hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on
her privacy and di

## Text

_Characters 0–39,922 of 353,130. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39922 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
AISHAT SHIFA
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7095 of 2022)
OCTOBER 13, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950: Arts.14, 19 (1), 21 and 25 - Right
to wear Hijab in Educational Institution - Freedom of Religion -
Essential Religious Practice (ERP) - Right to Choice - On
03.02.2022, petitioners, students of Government Pre-University
College in Udupi were stopped at their college gate and told to
take off their Hijab before entering the college - As they refused to
take off Hijab, they were denied entry in college by the administration
- On 05.02.2022, Government Order (G.O.) was issued regarding
'a dress code for student of all schools and colleges of the state'
under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 - The order mandated
that the uniform prescribed by the College Development Committee
or the Board of Management should be worn - Since Hijab was not
made part of the 'uniform', the petitioners were denied entry in
their college - Petitioners challenged the G.O. before High Court -
High Court held that wearing of Hijab by Muslim women does not
form a part of ERP in Islamic faith and that prescription of School
uniform places only a reasonable restriction which is constitutionally
permissible and cannot be objected to by the students - Hence
instant appeal - Per Hemant Gupta, J.: The constitution of the College
Development Committee is not in conflict with any of the provisions
of the Act, 1983 - The said G. O. does not run contrary to any of
the provisions of the Act and the rules framed there under - The
executive was well within its jurisdiction to ensure that the students
come in the uniform prescribed by the College Development
Committee - The object of the G.O. was to ensure that there is
parity amongst the students in terms of uniform - the purpose was
only to promote uniformity and encourage a secular environment
in the schools, which is in tune with the right guaranteed under
Art.14 - Art.25(2)(a) gives primacy to laws made by competent
legislature for regulation of secular aspects and Art.25(2)(b) gives
primacy to "social welfare" and "reform'' - If a particular practice/
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 426
426
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
427
belief/part of any religion is in existence and is found to be subjected
to either "social welfare" and "reform", such right will have to
give way to "social welfare" and "reform" - The religious belief
cannot be carried to a secular school maintained out of State funds
- It is open to the students to carry their faith in a school which
permits them to wear Hijab or any other mark - The right under
Art.19(1)(a) as a right of expression to dress as per one's own will,
however, is also subject to reasonable restrictions under sub-clause
(2) of Art.19 - None of the fundamental rights is absolute, curtailment
of the right is permissible by following due procedure which can
withstand the test of reasonableness - Students have no right to be
in the school in violation of the mandate of the uniform prescribed
under the Statute and the Rules - If students choose not to attend
classes due to the uniform that has been prescribed, it is a voluntary
act of such students and cannot be said to be in violation of Art.29
by the State - G.O. cannot be said to be against the ethic of
secularism or to the objective of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983
- Per Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Dissenting): The question of ERP was not
at all relevant in the determination of the dispute before the Court -
Instead of straightaway taking the ERP route, the High Court could
have first examined whether the restriction imposed by the school
or the G.O on wearing a Hijab, were valid restrictions or whether
these restrictions are hit by the Doctrine of Proportionality - The
entire exercise done by the High Court, in evaluating the rights of
the petitioners only on the touchstone of ERP, was incorrect - If the
belief is sincere, and it harms no one else, there can be no justifiable
reasons for banning Hijab in a classroom - Asking a pre university
schoolgirl to take off her Hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on
her privacy and dignity - G.O. and the restrictions on the wearing
of hijab, goes against our constitutional value of fraternity and
human dignity - Under our Constitutional scheme, wearing a Hijab
should be simply a matter of choice - It may or may not be a matter
of ERP, but it still is, a matter of conscience, belief, and expression
- Asking the girls to take off their Hijab before entering the school
gates is clearly violative of Arts.19(1)(a), 21 and 25(1) of the
Constitution - There shall be no restriction on the wearing of Hijab
anywhere in schools and colleges in Karnataka - Held: In view of
the divergent views expressed by the Bench, the matter to be placed
before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate
AISHAT SHIFA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
Bench - Karnataka Education Act, 1983 - ss.133, 145 - Karnataka
Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription
of Curricula etc.) Rules, 1995 - rr.11, 16.
Placing the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India,
the Court
Per HEMANT GUPTA, J.
HELD: 1. "Law", as contemplated under Articles 19(2) and
25(2), falls within Part III of the Constitution. Therefore, law, as
defined under Article 13(3), would include any ordinance, order,
bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage in the
territory of India to have the force of law. The order issued by
the State Government would thus be a law within the meaning of
Article 13(2) read with Article 13(3)(a), which is a valid exercise
of power under Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2), and Article
25(1) read with Article 25(2) of the Constitution. The Government
Order relates to the powers conferred on the executive under
Section 133 of the Act and rule-making power of the State under
Article 162 of the Constitution. The said Government Order does
not run contrary to any of the provisions of the Act and the rules
framed thereunder. Therefore, the executive was well within its
jurisdiction to ensure that the students come in the uniform
prescribed by the College Development Committee. The
constitution of the College Development Committee does not
contravenes any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made
thereunder or that the regulation of uniform by such Committee
is beyond its scope [Paras 46, 47 and 57][469-E-G; 473-A]
2. In the matters of campus discipline of the educational
institutions, the Court does not substitute its own views in place
of the school authority except in a case of manifest injustice or to
interfere with a decision which does not pass the test of
Wednesbury reasonableness. One need to examine the right to
freedom of conscience and religion in light of the restrictions
provided under Article 25(1) of the Constitution. Such right is
not just subject to public order, morality and health but also 'other
provisions of Part III'. This would also include Article 14 which
provides for equality before law. The object of the Government
Order was to ensure that there is parity amongst the students in
terms of uniform. It was only to promote uniformity and encourage
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
429
a secular environment in the schools. This is in tune with the
right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence,
restrictions on freedom of religion and conscience have to be
read conjointly along with other provisions of Part III as laid down
under the restrictions of Article 25(1). [Paras 78, 88 and 89]
[481-B-C; 485-F; 486-C-D]
3. If the believers of the faith hold an opinion that wearing
of hijab is an essential religious practice, the question is whether
the students can seek to carry their religious beliefs and symbols
to a secular school. [Para 108][498-A-B]
4.1 The claim of the appellants is not to perform a religious
activity in a religious institution but to wear headscarf in public
place as a matter of social conduct expected from the believers
of the faith. But in the present, the students want to subjugate
their freedom of choice of dress to be regulated by religion than
by the State while they are in fact students of a state school. The
equality before law is to treat all citizens equally, irrespective of
caste, creed, sex or place of birth. Such equality cannot be
breached by the State on the basis of religious faith. The
Constitution has negatively worded Article 25(2). Article 25(2)(a)
gives primacy to laws made by competent legislature for regulation
of secular aspects and Article 25(2)(b) gives primacy to "social
welfare" and "reform". In other words, if the State seeks to
regulate the economic, political, financial or other secular aspects
connected with religion, the State law is to have primacy over the
proposed right. Similarly, if a particular practice/belief/part of any
religion is in existence and is found to be subjected to either
"social welfare" and "reform", such right will have to give way to
"social welfare" and "reform". [Paras 118 and 119][506-B-E]
4.2 The practice of wearing of hijab may be a 'religious
practice' or an 'essential religious practice' or it may be social
conduct for the women of Islamic faith. The interpretations by
the believers of the faith about wearing of headscarf is the belief
or faith of an individual. The religious belief cannot be carried to
a secular school maintained out of State funds. It is open to the
students to carry their faith in a school which permits them to
AISHAT SHIFA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
wear Hijab or any other mark, may be tilak, which can be identified
to a person holding a particular religious belief but the State is
within its jurisdiction to direct that the apparent symbols of
religious beliefs cannot be carried to school maintained by the
State from the State funds. Thus, the practice of wearing hijab
could be restricted by the State in terms of the Government Order.
[Para 125][509-D-E]
5. The Government order is in exercise of the executive
powers of the State. The reasons for an enactment of a Statute,
Rules and statutory order are not required to be part of it. It is
only when the issue of constitutionality is raised, the executive
is required to satisfy the Court about the legality of action taken.
The right under Article 19(1)(a) as a right of expression to dress
as per one's own will, however, is also subject to reasonable
restrictions under sub-clause (2) of Article 19. The State has not
put a restriction on the exercise of right conferred under Article
19(1)(a) but has regulated the same in a manner that during the
school hours on working days and in the class, the students shall
wear the uniform as prescribed. Since it is a regulatory provision
for wearing of uniform, hence, the decision of the State
Government mandating the College Development Committee to
ensure the students wear the uniform as prescribed does not
violate the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), rather
reinforces the right to equality under Article 14. The College
Development Committee is constituted in terms of the statutory
provisions and, therefore, the direction of the State that the
College Development Committee shall ensure that the students
wear the dress as prescribed cannot be said to be violative of
Part III of the Constitution. [Para 139][515-D-G]
6. None of the fundamental rights is absolute. The
curtailment of the right is permissible by following due procedure
which can withstand the test of reasonableness. The intent and
object of the Government Order is only to maintain uniformity
amongst the students by adherence to the prescribed uniform. It
is reasonable as the same has the effect of regulation of the right
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Thus, the right of freedom of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
431
expression under Article 19(1)(a) and of privacy under Article 21
are complementary to each other and not mutually exclusive and
does meet the injunction of reasonableness for the purposes of
Article 21 and Article 14. [Para 146][519-E-F]
7. Fraternity is a noble goal but cannot be seen from the
prism of one community alone. It is a goal for all citizens of the
country irrespective of caste, creed, sex and religion. The
Constitutional goal of fraternity would be defeated if the students
are permitted to carry their apparent religious symbols with them
to the classroom. None of the judgments referred to by the
learned counsel for the appellants deal with an issue of fraternity
in respect of a section of the citizens who wish to carry their
religious symbols to a classroom. The Constitutional goal as
emanating from the Preamble would not be achieved if fraternity
is given a narrow meaning in respect of the students identifying
themselves with the religious symbols in the classroom. Religion,
which is a private affair, has no meaning in a secular school run
by the State. The students are free to profess their religion and
carry out their religious activities other than when they are
attending a classroom where religious identities should be left
behind. Accordingly, the Government Order does not impinge
on the Constitutional promise of fraternity and dignity. Instead,
it promotes an equal environment where such fraternal values
can be imbibed and nurtured without any hindrance of any kind.
[Paras 159, 160 and 161][527-B-H]
8. The schools run by the State are open for admission
irrespective of any religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
Even the Act mandates that the students would be admitted
without any restriction on such grounds. However, the students
are required to follow the discipline of the school in the matter of
uniform. They have no right to be in the school in violation of the
mandate of the uniform prescribed under the Statute and the
Rules. The State has not denied admission to the students from
attending classes. If they choose not to attend classes due to the
uniform that has been prescribed, it is a voluntary act of such
students and cannot be said to be in violation of Article 29 by the
AISHAT SHIFA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
State. It is not a denial of rights by the State but instead a voluntary
act of the students. It would thus not amount to denial of right to
education if a student, by choice, does not attend the school. A
student, thus, cannot claim the right to wear a headscarf to a
secular school as a matter of right. [Paras 167 and 169][530-C;
530-H; 531-A-B]
9. If a particular student feels that she cannot compromise
with the wearing of headscarf or of any other student to wear any
outwardly religious symbol, the school would be justified not to
allow such student, in the larger interest of treating all the
students alike as a part of mandate of Article 14, which is central
to the theme of Part III of the Constitution. The Government
Order cannot be said to be contrary to the State goal of promoting
literacy and education as mandated under the Constitution. The
Government Order only ensures that the uniform prescribed is
adhered to by the students and it cannot be said that State is
restricting the access to education to the girl students through
such an Order. Secularism is applicable to all citizens, therefore,
permitting one religious community to wear their religious
symbols would be antithesis to secularism. Thus, the Government
Order cannot be said to be against the ethic of secularism or to
the objective of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. [Paras 190,
194 and 197][538-A-B; 539-E-F; 541-C-D]
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8
SCC 481 : [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 587; K.S. Puttaswamy
and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 10 SCC 1 :
[2017] 10 SCR 569; Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of
Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549; Sri Adi Visheshwara of
Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi v. State of U.P.
(1997) 4 SCC 606 : [1997] 2 SCR 1086; Dr. M. Ismail
Faruqui & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC
360 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 1; Javed & Ors. v. State of
Haryana & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 369 : [2003] 1 Suppl.
SCR 947; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr.
(1978) 1 SCC 248 : [1978] 2 SCR 621; Bachan Singh
v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684; I.R. Coelho v.
State of Tamil Nadu (1999) 7 SCC 580 : [1999] 2 Suppl.
SCR 394; Re the Kerala Education Bill, 1957 -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
433
Reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of
India AIR 1958 SC 956 : [1959] SCR 995 - followed.
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27 :
[1950] SCR 88; State of Travancore-Cochin & Ors. v.
Bombay Company Ltd., Alleppey AIR1952 SC 366 :
[1952] SCR 1112; Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors. 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : [1992] 2 Suppl.
SCR 454; Bihar State Madarasa Education Board v.
Madarasa Hanfia Arabic College (1990) 1 SCC 428 :
[1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 399; Modern Dental College &
Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7
SCC 353 : [2016] 3 SCR 579- relied on.
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615 :
[1986] 3 SCR 518 - held inapplicable.
A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P. & Ors. (1996)
9 SCC 548 : [1996] 3 SCR 543; Kesavananda Bharati
v. State of Kerala & Anr. (1973) 4 SCC 225 : [1973]
Suppl. SCR 1; Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj
Narain 1975 (Supp.) SCC 1 : [1976] 2 SCR 347;
Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass
Mehra & Ors. (1976) 2 SCC 17 : [1975] Suppl.
SCR 281; S.R. Bommai & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
(1994) 3 SCC 1 : [1994] 2 SCR 644; Santosh Kumar
& Ors. v. Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources
Development & Anr. (1994) 6 SCC 579 : [1994] 4 Suppl.
SCR 139; Ms. Aruna Roy & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 368 : [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR
266; Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabarimala Temple Review5J.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. (2020)
2 SCC 1 : [2019] 17 SCR 599; State of Madhya Pradesh
& Anr. v. Thakur Bharat Singh AIR 1967 SC 1170 :
[1967] 2 SCR 454; State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali
Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75 : [1952] SCR 284; Bishambhar
Dayal Chandra Mohan & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 39 : [1982] 1 SCR 1137;
Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of
Pharmacy & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1224; Shri
Dwarka Nath Tewari v. State of Bihar AIR 1959 SC
AISHAT SHIFA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
249; Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
AIR 1967 SC 1910 : [1968] 1 SCR 111; Union of India
& Anr. v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147 :
[2013] 12 SCR 629; Shayara Bano v. Union of India
& Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 1 : [2017] 9 SCR 797;
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras
v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt
AIR 1954 SC 282 : [1954] SCR 1005; National Legal
Services Authority v. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 5
SCC 438 : [2014] 5 SCR 119; K.S. Puttaswamy.
Chairman, J & K State Board of Education v. Feyaz
Ahmed Malik (2000) 3 SCC 59 : [2000] 1 SCR 402;
Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society & Anr. v. State
of Gujarat & Anr. (1974) 1 SCC 717 : [1975] 1 SCR
173; S.P. Mittal v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 51 :
[1983] 1 SCR 729; Commissioner of Police & Ors. v.
Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta & Anr. (2004)
12 SCC 770; Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
& Ors. (1985) 2 SCC 556 : [1985] 3 SCR 844; Danial
Latifi & Anr. v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740 :
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 419; Iqbal Bano v. State of U.P.
& Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 785 : [2007] 7 SCR 949; Shayara
Bano v. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 1 : [2017]
9 SCR 797; Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and others v. State
of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731 : [1959] SCR 629; N.K.
Mohd. Sulaiman Sahib v. N.C. Mohd. Ismail Saheb &
Ors., AIR 1966 SC 792 : [1966] 1 SCR 937; Ratilal
Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC
388 : [1954] SCR 1055; Durgah Committee, Ajmer v.
Syed Hussain Ali AIR 1961 SC 1402 : [1962] 1 SCR
383; Sri Venkataramana Devaru & Ors. v. State of
Mysore & Ors. AIR 1958 SC 255 : [1958] SCR 895;
Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj Etc. v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1638 : [1964] 1 SCR
561; Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta & Ors. v.
Commissioner of Police, Calcutta & Anr. (1983) 4 SCC
522 : [1984] 1 SCR 447; Young Lawyers Association
& Ors. (Sabarimala Temple, In Re) v. State of Kerala &
Ors. (2019) 11 SCC 1 : [2018] 9 SCR 561; M. Siddiq
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
435
(Dead) through LRs. (Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case)
v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. (2020) 1 SCC 1 : [2019]
18 SCR 1; Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2017)
4 SCC 397 : [2017] 1 SCR 945; Mohinder Singh Gill
& Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi &
Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405 : [1978] 2 SCR 272; Devidas
Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 1 : [2015] 7 SCR 853; St. Stephen's
College v. University of Delhi (1992) 1 SCC 558 : [1991]
3 Suppl. SCR 121; Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union
of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 : [2018] 7 SCR 379; S.
Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram & Ors., (1989) 2 SCC
547; Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry
of Law & Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 221 : [2016] 3 SCR 865;
Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. (2020)
4 SCC 727 : [2020] 2 SCR 727; Tehseen S. Poonawalla
v. Union of India & Ors. (2018) 9 SCC 501 : [2018]
9 SCR 291; St. Stephen's College, Sri Adi Visheshwara
of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, State of Karnataka & Anr.
v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (2004) 4 SCC 684 :
[2004] 3 SCR 652; No. 786505-N Leading Aircraftsman
Ansari Aaftab Ahmed v. Union of India & Ors. 2008
L.I.C. 4004 (CWP No. 14927 of 2005 decided on
14.7.2008); Mohammed Zubair Corporal No. 781467G v. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 2 SCC 115 : [2016]
9 SCR 111; Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India & Ors.
(2000) 3 SCC 588 : [2000] 2 SCR 752; Jeeja Ghosh
& Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 761 :
[2016] 4 SCR 638; Vikash Kumar v. Union Public
Service Commission & Ors. (2021) 5 SCC 370;
Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. v. Union of India &
Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1293; Society for Unaided
Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr.
(2012) 6 SCC 1 : [2012] 2 SCR 715; Indibly Creative
Private Ltd. & Ors. v. Government of West Bengal &
Ors. (2020) 12 SCC 436 : [2019] 5 SCR 679 - referred
to.
Thakur Bharat Singh v. State of M.P. & Anr. AIR 1964
MP 175; Amnah Bint Basheer & Anr. v. Central Board
AISHAT SHIFA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
of Secondary Education (CBSE), New Delhi & Anr. AIR
2016 Ker 115; Gurleen Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab
& Ors. 2009 SCC OnLine P& H 6132; Fathima
Thasneem (Minor) & Anr. v. The State of Kerala & Ors.
2018 SCC OnLine Ker 5267; M. Ajmal Khan v. The
Election Commission of India, rep. by its Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi-I & Ors. 2006 SCC OnLine
Mad 794 : (2006) 5 CTC 121 - referred to.
Mulla's Mohammedan Law, 5th edition, 2019
- referred to.
Per SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. (Dissenting)
HELD: 1. The instant case is of assertion of individual Right
as different from what would be a community Right. Whereas
Clause 1 of Article 25 deals with individual rights, Article 25(2)
and Article 26 of the Constitution of India, deal by and large with
community-based rights. The entire exercise done by the
Karnataka High Court, in evaluating the rights of the Petitioners
only on the touchstone of ERP, was incorrect. [Para 28][553-EF]
2. Two children, two girl students, are asserting their
identity by wearing hijab, and claim protection under Article 19
and Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Whether wearing hijab
is an ERP in Islam or not is not essential for the determination of
this dispute. If the belief is sincere, and it harms no one else,
there can be no justifiable reasons for banning hijab in a
classroom. The petitioners today face the same predicament as
the Jehovah's Witnesses in the Bijoe Emmanuel. The present
Petitioners too wear hijab as an article of their faith. They too
believe that it is a part of their religion and social practice. This
case is squarely covered by the case of Bijoe Emmanuel and the
ratio laid down therein [Paras 34 and 49][554-G-H; 560-H; 561A]
Bijoe Emmanuel and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
1986 3 SCC 615 : [1986] 3 SCR 518 - relied on.
3. School is a public place, yet drawing a parallel between a
school and a jail or a military camp, is not correct. Again, if the
point which was being made by the High Court was regarding
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
437
discipline in a school, then that must be accepted. It is necessary
to have discipline in schools. But discipline not at the cost of
freedom, not at the cost of dignity. Asking a pre university
schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion
on her privacy and dignity. It is clearly violative of the Fundamental
Right given to her under Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution
of India. This right to her dignity and her privacy she carries in
her person, even inside her school gate or when she is in her
classroom. It is still her Fundamental Right, not a "derivative
right" as has been described by the High Court. [Para 52]
[562-C-E]
4. Another question which the School Administration and
the State must answer in the present case is as to what is more
important to them: Education of a girl child or Enforcement of a
Dress Code! The question this Court would therefore put before
itself is also whether we are making the life of a girl child any
better by denying her education, merely because she wears a
hijab . All the Petitioners want is to wear a hijab! Is it too much to
ask in a democracy? How is it against public order, morality or
health? or even decency or against any other provision of Part
III of the Constitution. These questions have not been sufficiently
answered in the Karnataka High Court Judgement. The State
has not given any plausible reasons either in the Government
Order dated 5 February 2022, or in the counter affidavit
before the High Court. It does not appeal to logic or reason as to
how a girl child who is wearing a hijab in a classroom is a
public order problem or even a law-and order problem.
[Paras 65-67][571-D-E; 572-A-C]
5. A girl child has the right to wear hijab in her house or
outside her house, and that right does not stop at her school
gate. The child carries her dignity and her privacy even when
she is inside the school gates, in her classroom. She retains her
fundamental rights. To say that these rights become derivative
rights inside a classroom, is wholly incorrect. Under our
Constitutional scheme, wearing a hijab should be simply a matter
of Choice. It may or may not be a matter of essential religious
practice, but it still is, a matter of conscience, belief, and
expression. If she wants to wear hijab, even inside her class room,
AISHAT SHIFA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
438
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
she cannot be stopped, if it is worn as a matter of her choice, as it
may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go
to school, and in those cases, her hijab is her ticket to education.
[Paras 68 and 80][572-E-F; 577-B]
6. By asking the girls to take off their hijab before they
enter the school gates, is first an invasion on their privacy, then
it is an attack on their dignity, and then ultimately it is a denial to
them of secular education. These are clearly violative of Article
19(1)(a), Article 21 and Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, all the appeals as well as the Writ Petitions are
allowed, but only to the extent as ordered b: a) The order of the
Karnataka High Court dated March 15, 2022, is hereby set aside;
b) The G.O. dated February 5, 2022 is hereby quashed and, c)
There shall be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in
schools and colleges in Karnataka. [Paras 83 and 84][577-F-G;
578-A]
K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. v Union of India and Ors.
(2017) 10 SCC 1 : [2017] 10 SCR 569; Maneka
Gandhi v Union of India and Anr. (1978) 1 SCC
248; [1978] 2 SCR 621; Aruna Roy v. Union of India
(2002) 7 SCC 368 : [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 266; Navtej
Singh Johar and Ors. v. Union of India, Ministry of
Law and Justice (2018) 10 SCC 1 : [2018] 7 SCR 379
- followed.
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras
v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt
[1954] SCR 1005 23; Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State
of Bombay and Ors. [1954] SCR 1055; Durgah
Committee, Ajmer, and Anr. v. Syed Hussain Ali and Ors.
[1962] 1 SCR 383; Acharya J. Avadhuta & Ors. v.
Commissioner of Police, Calcutta & Anr. (1983) 4 SCC
522 : [1984] 1 SCR 447; Commissioner of Police &
Ors. v. Acharya J. Avadduta (2004) 12 SCC 770 :
[2004] 2 SCR 1019; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
(1980) 2 SCC 684 - held inapplicable.
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1964] 1 SCR
332; Kantaru Rajeevaru vs Indian Young Lawyers Assn.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
439
and Ors. [R.P. (C) No. 3358 of 2018 in W.P. (C) No.
373 of 2006]; Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Ors.
(2017) 9 SCC 1 : [2017] 9 SCR 797; Indian Young
Lawyers Association and Ors, (Sabarimala Temple, In
Re.) v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2019) 11 SCC 1 :
[2018] 9 SCR 561; M. Siddiq (Dead) Through LR's v.
Mahant Suresh Das and Ors. (2020) 1 SCC 1 : [2019]
18 SCR 1; St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi
(1992) 1 SCC 558 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121 - referred
to.
Ras Behari Lal and Others v. The King-Emperor AIR
1933 PC 208- referred to.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319
US 624 (1943); Regina (SB) v. Governors of Denbigh
High School [2007] 1 AC 100; Miller v. Gills 315 F.
Supp. 94 (N.D. Ill. 1969); Christmas v. El Reno Board
of Education 313 F. Supp. 618 (W.D. Okla. 1970);
Employment Division v. Smith 494 US 872 (1990); United
States v. Schwimmer 279 US 644 (1929) - referred to.
Speech of Dr. Ambedkar on 25th November, 1949:
Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume XI; Rawls,
John (1921): A Theory of Social Justice, Rev. Ed.;
The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts - referred to.
Case Law Reference
In the judgment of HEMANT GUPTA, J.
[2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 587
followed
Para 3
[1996] 3 SCR 543
referred to
Para 5
[1973] Suppl. SCR 1
referred to
Para 6
[1976] 2 SCR 347
referred to
Para 7
[1975] Suppl. SCR 281
referred to
Para 8
[1994] 2 SCR 644
referred to
Para 9
[1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 139
referred to
Para 10
AISHAT SHIFA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
440
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 266
referred to
Para 11
[2019] 17 SCR 599
referred to
Para 24
[2017] 10 SCR 569
followed
Para 27
[1967] 2 SCR 454
referred to
Para 32
[1952] SCR 284
referred to
Para 32
[1982] 1 SCR 1137
referred to
Para 32
AIR 1955 SC 549
followed
Para 35
AIR 1959 SC 249
referred to
Para 45
[1968] 1 SCR 111
referred to
Para 50
[2013] 12 SCR 629
referred to
Para50
[1950] SCR 88
relied on
Para 66
[1952] SCR 1112
relied on
Para 67
[1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454
relied on
Para 70
[2017] 9 SCR 797
referred to
Para 70
[1954] SCR 1005
referred to
Para 70
[2014] 5 SCR 119
referred to
Para 71
[2000] 1 SCR 402
referred to
Para 78
[1975] 1 SCR 173
referred to
Para 79
[1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 399
relied on
Para 80
[2016] 3 SCR 579
relied on
Para 81
[1983] 1 SCR 729
referred to
Para 84
[1997] 2 SCR 1086
followed
Para 86
(2004) 12 SCC 770
referred to
Para 91
[1985] 3 SCR 844
referred to
Para 99
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 419
referred to
Para 99
[2007] 7 SCR 949
referred to
Para 99
[2017] 9 SCR 797
referred to
Para 99
[1959] SCR 629
referred to
Para 102
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
441
[1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 1
followed
Para 104
[2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 947
followed
Para 105
[1954] SCR 1055
referred to
Para 110
[1962] 1 SCR 383
referred to
Para 111
[1958] SCR 895
referred to
Para 112
[1964] 1 SCR 561
referred to
Para 113
[1984] 1 SCR 447
referred to
Para 114
[2018] 9 SCR 561
referred to
Para 115
[1986] 3 SCR 518
held inapplicable
Para 116
[2019] 18 SCR 1
referred to
Para 124
[2017] 1 SCR 945
referred to
Para 129
[1978] 2 SCR 272
referred to
Para 130
[1978] 2 SCR 621
followed
Para 131
[2015] 7 SCR 853
referred to
Para 133
[1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121
referred to
Para 134
[2018] 7 SCR 379
referred to
Para 133
(1980) 2 SCC 684
followed
Para 140
(1989) 2 SCC 547
referred to
Para 142
[1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 394
followed
Para 144
[2016] 3 SCR 865
referred to
Para 149
[2020] 2 SCR 727
referred to
Para 150
[2018] 9 SCR 291
referred to
Para 151
[2004] 3 SCR 652
referred to
Para 152
[2016] 9 SCR 111
referred to
Para 163
[1959] SCR 995
followed
Para 170
[2000] 2 SCR 752
referred to
Para 171
[2016] 4 SCR 638
referred to
Para 177
(2021) 5 SCC 370
referred to
Para 177
AISHAT SHIFA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
[2012] 2 SCR 715
referred to
Para 191
[2019] 5 SCR 679
referred to
Para 194
In the judgment of SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
[1964] 1 SCR 332
referred to
Para 14
[1986] 3 SCR 518
relied on
Para 19
[1954] SCR 1005
held inapplicable
Para 23
[1954] SCR 1055
held inapplicable
Para 25
[1962] 1 SCR 383
held inapplicable
Para 26
[1984] 1 SCR 447
held inapplicable
Para 27
[2004] 2 SCR 1019
held inapplicable
Para 27
[2019] 18 SCR 1
held inapplicable
Para 37
[2017] 10 SCR 569
followed
Para 52
[1978] 2 SCR 621
followed
Para 52
(1980) 2 SCC 684
held inapplicable
Para 54
[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 266
followed
Para 73
[2018] 7 SCR 379
followed
Para 74
[1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121
referred to
Para 75
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 7095 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2022 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in W.P. No.2880 of 2022.
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 120 of 2022, Civil Appeal Nos.7075, 6957,
7078-7083, 7077, 7074, 7076, 7072, 6934, 7084, 7085, 7092, 7088 of 2022,
writ petition (c) no. 95 of 2022, Civil Appeal Nos. 7087, 7090, 7096,
7091, 7089, 7086, 7069, 7098, 7093, 7099, 7070 of 2022
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, K.M. Natraj, ASG, Nikhil Goel,
Prasanna Deshpande, Aruna Shyam, YH Vijay Kumar, AAGs, Prabhuling
Navadgi, Adv. General, Gaurav Bhatia, Siddharta Dave, Sanjay R. Hegde,
Salman Khurshid, Ms. Jayna Kothari, Dushyant Dave, Devadatt Kamat,
Guru Krishna Kumar, Pran Krishna Jana, Yusuf Hatim Muchhala, R
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
443
Venkatramani, Sanjay Hegde, Huzefa Ahmadi, Dr. Aditya Sondhi, Kapil
Sibal, A. M. Dar, Ms. V. Mohana, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Colin Gonsalves,
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Advs., Shubhranshu Padhi, Kanu Agarwal,
Aneesh Shahade, Vishal Banshal, Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Niroop
Sukirthy, Mohd. Ovais, Sushal Tiwari, Adithya Koshi Roy, Chitransh
Sharma, Nakul Chengappa KK, Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Abhikalp Pratap
Singh, Kartik Kaushal, Shailesh Madiyal, Vinayaka S. Pandit, Sudhanshu
Prakash, H. Vinayaka S. Pandit, Rajan Parmar, Vaibhav Sabharwal,
Ms. Vidhi T., Mehmood Umar Faruqui, Ms. Koshy John, Ms. Asifa
Rashid Mir, Shereef K.A., Mohd. Tahir, Muhammed Azaruddin, Anas
Tanwir, Ms. Masoom Raj Singh, Ms. Ritika Singh, Abdul Qadir, Raghav
Gupta, Shahrukh Ali, Farhan, Aftab Ali Khan, M. Z. Chaudhary, Ali Safeer
Farooqi, Syed Imtiaz Ali, Shahbaz, Mujeeb Rehman, Mumtaz Alam
Siddiqui, Ms. Tehsheena Z. Hussain, Ms. Lubna Naaz, Dr. Lokendra
Malik, Rahat Ali Chaudhary, Nitin Kashyap, Ramesh Sachdeva, Ms.
Mariya Mansuri, Ms. Azra Rehman, Anshu Kapoor, Arvind Kumar
Kanva, Bilal A. Khan, Ms. Mitali Chauhan, Danish Zubair Khan, Mareesh
Pravir Sahay, Chandra Sekhar Padhi, Roopesh Singh Bhadauria, Arpit
Singh, Umesh Pratap Singh, Gaurav Jain, Ms. Eccha Shukla, Ms.
Awanitika, Sachin Kharb, Shahab Ahmad, Ms. Tanya Sharma, M. P.
Sahay, Ms. Saba Khan, Ms. Vidhi Thaker, Ms. Farheen Fatima, Aftab
Ali Khan, Mumtaz Alam Siddiqui, Dr. Anindita Pujari, Azad Bansaria,
Prannv Dhavan, Ms. Saaneya Hidayath, Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, M. R.
Shamshad, Arijit Sarkar, Shashank Singh, Ms. Nabeela Jamil, Ms. Niaz
A. Faruqui, Ms. Neha Sangwan, Ms. Ashi Shereen Ahmad, Shadul
Hameed Reheman, Nishanth Patil, Rajesh Inamdar, Harsh Pandey,
Sabyasachi Banerjee, Shoumendu Mukherji, Praneet Pranav, Merusagar
Samantray, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Amit
Sharma, Arindam, Ms. Megha Sharma, Shoeb Alam, Ms. Fauzia Shakil,
Ujjwal Singh, Agastya Sen, Javedur Rahman, Nizam Pasha, Shahul
Hameed, Yojit Singh, Mohd. Niyas S., Harsh Pandey, Revanta Solanki,
Nishant Patil, Mudassir, Aditya Samaddar, Mohd. Niyas, Shoeb Khan,
Kaleeswaram Raj, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Thulasi K. Raj, Ms. Anu
K. Joy, Alim Anvar, Pran Krisana Jana, Ms. Nazish Fatima, Arvind
Gupta, Md. Tahir M. Hakim, Ejaz Maqbool, Sagheer A. Khan, Ms.
Rashda S. Ainapore, Mohamed Nawaz Haindaday, Ms. Akriti Chaubey,
Saif Zia, Nachiketa Joshi, VVV Pattabhiram, Santosh Kumar, Ms. Ankita
Choudhary, Rahul Tanwani, Chitwan Singhal, Sushal Tiwari, Baij Nath
Patel, Rahamathulla Kothwal, Ms. Siddika Aisha, Kumail Abbas, Mohd
AISHAT SHIFA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
Shahrukh Ali, Raghav Gupta, Pallabh, Nikhil, Adeel Ahmed, Sachin
Pahwa, Zulfiker Ali P. S, Thoyyib Hudawai, Ms. Lakshmi Sree, Talha
Abdul Rahman, Harsh Vardhan Kediya, Mohd. Shaz Khan, Ms. Disha
Wadekar, Bilal A. Khan, Mohd. Afeef, Rishabh Devan Parikh, Ms. Rupali
Samuel, Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Koshy John, Dileep Poolakkot,
Muhammed Siddick, Aljo K. Josesh, Haris Beeran, Mushtaq Salim, Azhar
Assees, Usman Ghani Khan, Ms. Pallavi Pratap, Ameen Hassan K.,
Danissh M. Dar, B. Shafi, Dr. Charu Mathur, Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Rahul
Unnikrishnan, Anukrit Gupta, Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Mahesh Thakur,
Siddharth Thakur, Ms. Vipasha Singh, Ajay Kanojiya, Ms. Shivani, Ms.
Neha Singh, Ms. Shailja Das, Md. Irshad Hanif, Javed R. Shaikh, Aarif
Ali, Rizwan Ahmad, Mohd. Aslam, Mujahid Ahmad, Ms. Rubina Jawed,
Tausif Ahmed Dar, Ahmed Parvez, Amar Kumar Raizada, Pankaj Tiwari,
Mohd. Faseeh Khan, Amir Kaleem, Mohit Kumar, Shishir Raj, Mohd.
Wasiq Khan, Sahid Uddin Ahmed, Pulkit Srivastava, Subodh Patil, Aayush
Anand, Pravartak Pathak, Gautam Singh, Ms. Kriti Ranjan, Bharat Singh,
Joyadeep Roy, Pulkit Srivastava, Subodh Patil, Aayush Anand, Gautam
Singh, Ms. Kriti Ranjal, Pravar Pathak, Barun Kumar Sinha, Mrs. Pratibha
Sinha, Mudit Kaul, Ms. Bebi Devi Boniya, Ms. Sudha Pal, Abhishek,
Siddharth Sinha, Ayush Anand, Abhishek Singh, Prashant Rawat, Tathagat
Sharma, Ved Prakash, Ms. Priya Mishra, Shivam Singhania, Ms. Fauzia
Shakil, Ms. Shivam, Archit Krishna, Shivam, Ms. Sonal Chopra, Rishab
Ahmad Chowdhury, Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Ms. Kirti Singh, Archit Sharma,
Aditya Chatterjee, Ms. Sonal Chopra, Raghu Vamsy Dasika, Anis Gupta,
Rashmi Singhania, Puspinder Singh, Karthik Sundar, Charudatta
Mahindrakar, Mandeep Singh, Vikram Hegde, Abhinav Hansaraman,
Chitwan Sharma, Nakul Mohta, Ms. Misha Rohatgi Mohta, Bharat
Monga, Ms. Richa, Prakash Shetty, Shadan Farasat, Chandratanay
Chaube, Bharat Gupta, Tushar Arora, Shourya Dasgupta, Aman Naqvi,
Ms. Hrishika Jain, Dhruv Bhatnagar, Nitesh, Ms. Mugdha, Satya Mitra,
Ankur Mittal, Jai Anant Dehadrai, Neeleshwar Pavani, Sidharth Arora,
Ms. Tejaswini Verma, Jaskaran Singh Chawla, Udito Koushik Sarmah,
Smaeer Srivastava, Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Rashmi Singh, Cheryl D'
Sooja, Jaimon Andrews, Ms. Piyo Harold Jaimon, Firdouse C. P., Sandeep
Thakur, Naresh Kumar, Abdulla Naseeh V.T., Aswathi M.K., Ms. Sneha
S. Deshmukh, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Akhileshwar Jha, Ms. Susmita
Kale, Ms. Deepti S. Rane, Ms. Kavya Lokande, Ms. Sanyali S. Pawar,
Amit K. Singh, Rahul G. Tanwani, Ms. Shivali Chaudhary, Siddharth S.
Chapalgaonkar, Hitesh Singh, Poornachandian, Ananvay Anandvardhan,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
445
Ms. Sivani Kukumanu, Gursimar Singh, Siddhartha Sinha, Sandeep Singh,
Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Ms. Alapana Sharma, Abhishek Mahajan, Nrig
Chamwibo Zeliang, Mehmood Umar Faruqui, Ms. Anindita Pujari, Ms.
Mugdha, Satya Mitra, Aljo K. Joseph, M. R. Shamshad, Naresh Kumar,
Shadan Farasat, Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Arjun Singh Bhati, Kartik Venu,
Mohd. Tahir, Ms. Urja Pandey, Ms.