Hijab Row: Karnataka HC Judge Calls Hair Loss Condition 'Ugliness,' Draws Flak

The comment was made during the hearing of the petitions concerning the wearing of hijab in educational institutes.

An insensitive remark about those suffering from skin condition 'acacia' was made by the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday, 16 February, and has elicited public condemnation. Image used for representation.

(Photo: The Quint)

An insensitive remark about people with a certain medical condition, made by one of the judges of the Karnataka High Court while hearing the petitions related to the hijab ban controversy, has drawn severe criticism, including from people who have experienced the condition.

A three-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court has been hearing detailed arguments on whether prohibiting Muslim girl students from wearing hijabs to their classrooms is a violation of their fundamental rights.

During the hearing on Wednesday, 16 February, senior advocate Ravivarma Kumar was arguing that the state government order on this whole issue, while ostensibly banning clothing worn by students of any community which 'disturbs equality, unity and public order,' only refers to hijabs when explaining why it has been passed.

"No other religious symbol is considered in the government order," he pointed out. "Why only hijab? Is it not because of their religion?"

On this basis, Kumar was trying to show that the government order amounts to hostile discrimination against girls from the Muslim community.

Justice Krishna S Dixit, one of the judges hearing the case, contested Kumar's argument, saying that the prohibition would apply to persons of any community, even a girl from another community who wanted to wear a headscarf because of a skin condition.

While the exchange was relevant to the argument being made by Kumar at the time, the wording of his comment has come in for flak. This is the exact statement made by the judge, which can be heard by going to 1:11:40 on the YouTube recording of the hearing:

"If a girl belonging to other community suffers from acacia, and to minimise the ugliness, she wears the headgear, comes to the school, she will not be permitted."

There is no skin condition called acacia, and it appears that the judge was referring to the condition 'alopecia.' The judge's reference to "the ugliness" caused by the condition has been criticised widely, including by people who have had the condition and those who pointed out how it perpetuates the stigma around the condition.

Note: While it is important for judges to have the freedom to pursue lines of questioning that properly examine a legal argument, the specific choice of words used in this instance, as can be heard in the YouTube video, is extremely unfortunate. The underlying point sought to be made here only required the judge to speak of possible discomfort of a person who has the medical condition and may therefore want to cover it. The usage of the term "the ugliness" has understandably led to this wording being considered insensitive, and reporting of the comment should not become a point of contention between the judiciary and the media.

Not First Controversy for Justice Dixit

This is not the first time that Justice Dixit has faced flak for his remarks as a judge. In June 2020, while granting bail to an accused in a rape case, he had written in the order:

"The explanation offered by the complainant that after the perpetration of the act she was tired and fell asleep, is unbecoming of an Indian woman; that is not the way our women react when they are ravished."

These remarks in the order came in for strong criticism. An open letter to the judge from lawyers and students termed the comments "prejudicial" and noted they could affect the trial, while another open letter from activists, rights groups, and academics condemned the patriarchal and misogynistic language.

"Instead of looking at the legal merits of granting bail, a woman's conduct has been judged on moralistic and misogynistic grounds that have nothing to do with the law," the second letter said.

In July that year, the Karnataka High Court expunged those lines from the order.