Processions, Hijab and a Journalist's 90-Day Detention
A district administration, citing intelligence inputs of communal tension, issues a 30-day order under Section 144 CrPC banning all religious processions, while permitting political rallies with 500 people. A State-affiliated college imposes a dress code barring the hijab in classrooms; a student who wears it is denied entry. In a third case, police arrest a journalist under a State 'Public Order Protection Act' for a social media post alleging corruption by a district magistrate. The Act allows arrest without warrant and detention for up to 90 days. The post relied on an audit note whose authenticity is later confirmed. The State defends all three actions as reasonable restrictions under Articles 19(2), 19(6) and 25(1). Three petitions reach the High Court together. The procession organisers say the route was the only one available; the college says the uniform promotes equality; the journalist says the post was truthful criticism of a public official and caused no violence.
1. Apply the proportionality test to the 30-day procession ban. Does permitting political rallies while banning religious processions make the order discriminatory or merely inconsistent?
Read the worked answer
A religious procession is a form of practice protected by Article 25(1), subject to public order, morality and health. The State has a legitimate aim: preventing communal violence. The ban is also rationally connected to that aim. The weakness is necessity. Proportionality requires the least restrictive measure, and the State had available options: route changes, staggered timings, police protection, prior permission with conditions, or a ban limited to the disputed stretch. A blanket 30-day ban with no individual assessment is overbroad and likely fails the necessity and balancing limbs.
The differential treatment of political rallies matters, but not automatically as discrimination. Under Article 14, the State can treat different gatherings differently if there is an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus. Processions may carry different risks because of route, history and crowd composition. But if rallies of 500 are permitted while all religious gatherings are banned, the State's claim that every assembly is equally dangerous collapses. The comparison is evidence that a less restrictive alternative was workable. The court should quash the blanket order or read it down to require individual assessment, while upholding the State's power to impose conditions.
2. How should the High Court approach the hijab ban? Discuss the essential religious practice doctrine, Article 19(1)(a), and Article 21 autonomy, and the risks of each approach.
Read the worked answer
The college is State-affiliated, so fundamental rights apply. One route is Article 25: is the hijab an essential religious practice? The essential-practice test derives from Shirur Mutt, but it is controversial because it makes the court the arbiter of religion and tends to protect only the minimum core. The Karnataka High Court held that the hijab is not essential; the Supreme Court's appeals ended in a split, so the question is unresolved. The risk of this route is that a sincere practice can be denied protection simply because a judge does not regard it as essential.
The second route is Articles 19(1)(a) and 21: dress can express identity, belief and autonomy. A uniform rule must serve a legitimate aim, such as equality or discipline, and must be narrowly tailored. The risk here is that autonomy arguments can erode reasonable institutional rules and ignore the school's interest in a common uniform.
A better approach is to ask whether the ban is neutral and generally applicable, whether exemptions exist for other symbols, and whether a less restrictive alternative exists, such as permitting the hijab in the prescribed colour. A blanket ban without evidence of disruption is likely disproportionate.
3. Does the journalist's 90-day detention satisfy Articles 19(2) and 21? Evaluate the 'tendency to create public disorder' test and the procedural safeguards.
Read the worked answer
The post is speech protected by Article 19(1)(a). A restriction under 19(2) must be reasonable and must have a proximate connection to public order. The Supreme Court in Rangarajan required a close nexus between the speech and public disorder, and in Shreya Singhal struck down a vague 'grossly offensive' provision because it was overbroad and chilled speech. A 'tendency' standard is even looser: almost any criticism can be said to have a tendency. A truthful allegation of corruption against a public official, supported by a verified audit note, is legitimate criticism and does not incite violence. The State has not shown a clear and present danger.
Article 21 and Article 22 also fail. Arrest without warrant and detention for 90 days without judicial review violate fair procedure. Article 22 requires production before a magistrate within 24 hours and communication of the grounds of arrest. D.K. Basu and Arnesh Kumar require safeguards against arbitrary arrest. The court should quash the detention, strike down the 'tendency' provision as vague and overbroad, and consider compensation if the arrest was mala fide. If the post had contained a call to violence, the analysis would differ.