New Delhi: The state can’t force a citizen to choose between religion and education, the Supreme Court was told on Wednesday, September 15, during its fifth hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka high court’s verdict that upheld the state government’s order on the hijab ban in educational institutions.The Supreme Court bench led by Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia asked whether there is any ‘authentic figure’ on how many students have dropped out from school and colleges in Karnataka because of the hijab ban and the subsequent judgment by the high court on the issue.“Do you have those authentic figures that because of this hijab ban and the subsequent judgment of the high court, 20, 30, 40 or 50 students have dropped out?” the bench asked the counsel, representing one of the petitioners, who raised the issue of students, especially girls, dropping out of school.Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the petitioner, referred to a study published by human rights body, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), which has testimonies of several students, including incidents of harassment, after the hijab ban.“My friend (one of the lawyers) informed me that 17,000 students had abstained from the exams after this particular judgment [was issued by the high court],” he told the bench, hearing arguments on a batch of pleas challenging the Karnataka high court verdict refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions of the state.On the dropout of students due to the ban, the bench said this argument has been raised at this stage and it was not part of the petition filed earlier before the high court, news agency Press Trust of India reported.“It is not a legal question, it is a factual question. Whether there is a dropout, drop out rate of girls or the boys. What is the age group? These are all factual,” the bench said.The Wire had reported, citing the PUCL study, that the hijab ban in Karnataka is widening the social divide among communities, leading to ghettoisation of education, social isolation and fear among Muslim students.Further, senior advocate Aditya Sondhi raised the issue of indirect discrimination against a particular section, in this case Muslim women, due to such seemingly ‘innocuous and neutral’ measures.According to LiveLaw, he cited Greek writer Aesop’s fable about serving soup on a shallow bowl to a fox and a stork. “Though shallow bowl is seemingly neutral, the stork can’t have the soup because of the long beak. So, seemingly neutral measures can have greater adverse impact on certain categories,” he argued.Sondhi also referred to the Sachar Committee report, which corroborated the fact that Muslim women are discriminated against in India for their religious attire. The government report published in 2006 titled Social, Economic, and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, said that “some women who interacted with the committee informed how in the corporate offices hijab-wearing Muslim women were finding it increasingly difficult to find jobs.” It added that “Muslim women in burqa complain of impolite treatment in the market, in hospitals, in accessing public facilities such as public transport and so on.”Watch | Study Shows Evidence of Bias Against Hiring Muslim WomenIn another report by The Wire, Muslim women spoke about at least three major common problems facing them because of what they wear: limited opportunities for work, a palpable sense of danger and a sense of being dismissed at the workplace.A choice between religion and educationDuring the hearing, senior advocate Ahmadi said that many girls have been forced to make a choice between their religion and education. “We are dealing with students who might perhaps be first learners in the family. We have to keep in mind the socio-economic background,” he added.Therefore, the Muslim women, who were earlier taking secular education in schools, will now be forced to go back to Madrasas, he said.It’s important to note here that, as per a report by The Wire, unpaid salaries, government neglect and a lack of awareness have led to a deteriorating condition of some madrassas in India. Moreover, not all families can afford to send their children to private and costly minority institutions, the PUCL reported in its study.Ahmadi further asked if a woman chooses to wear a hijab, why should that provoke anyone else? “And if it does, you have to actually address that. Because otherwise, you are effectively allowing someone to be bullied,” he said.Senior advocate Sondhi, while referring to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, which held that the prescription against wearing hijab in schools is illegal, said that nothing was shown to establish that wearing of hijab will violate the fundamental rights of others.“A citizen must not be burdened with choosing between two rights [religion and education]. That is the predicament which the girls are facing,” he argued.Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for another petitioner, said: “It [the government order] is probably targeting Muslims and Muslim women in particular and therefore contrary to Articles 14 and 15. And this kind of targeting without any sensitivity is contrary to law and the Constitution.”However, the Supreme Court bench observed, “The government order does not say no hijab.”Also read: Hijab Ban: Can Religious Clothing Be Worn to Govt Schools in Secular Country, Asks SCWhat did the top court say in previous hearingsThe Supreme Court, led by the same bench, had asked if the right to dress would also include the “right to undressing.”“You may have a religious right to practise whatever you want to practise. But can you practise and take that right to a school which has uniform as a part of dress you have to wear? That will be the question,” the bench had said.It further said that the State is not denying any right to students, it is only asking them to come in a uniform. To this, the advocate, appearing for the petitioners, responded saying, “There can be a reasonable restriction, no doubt. I am not saying I won’t wear uniform. I am wearing uniform with the headscarf.”To this, Justice Gupta had asked if the “right to dress” also included the “right to undress”.In another hearing, Justice Gupta had asked the advocate, representing the petitioner, not to compare the ban on hijab with the practices in Sikhism [wearing of turban] as these practices are well-established in the culture of the country.