What Happened With Muskan Khan Is Most Disgraceful
1️⃣ Background of the Incident
Muskan Khan, a Muslim girl and student in Mandya, Karnataka, was heckled by a group of men wearing saffron scarves at her college entrance.
The men chanted “Jai Shri Ram,” and in response, Muskan raised her hand and shouted “Allahu Akbar”.
This act was widely circulated in the media and social media. It highlighted tensions related to religious identity, individual rights, and educational access.
The incident occurred amidst the ongoing Karnataka hijab controversy, which concerned whether Muslim girls could wear the hijab in educational institutions.
2️⃣ Legal Context
The incident engages several legal principles under the Indian Constitution:
Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25)
Article 25 provides that all persons have the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
Courts distinguish between practices that are essential to religion and those that are not.
Right to Equality (Article 14)
No person can be discriminated against on grounds of religion, caste, or gender.
Any restriction on religious expression must be reasonable and justified by law.
Right to Education (Article 21A)
Every child has a right to free and compulsory education, which includes non-discrimination on religious grounds.
3️⃣ Relevant Case Law
a) Shirur Mutt Case (1954)
Facts: Dispute over practices at a religious mutt.
Held: Courts can protect essential religious practices under Article 25.
Relevance: Determining whether wearing a hijab is essential to Islam becomes important in disputes like the Karnataka case.
b) Indian Air Force vs Muslim Airman (2016)
Facts: Muslim airman challenged discharge for keeping a beard.
Held: The Supreme Court held that keeping a beard was not an essential religious practice for Islam.
Relevance: Supports the principle that not all religious customs are protected under Article 25; only essential practices are.
c) Karnataka Hijab Row Case (2022)
Facts: Muslim girls were prohibited from wearing hijab in colleges.
Held (Karnataka High Court): Wearing the hijab is not essential to Islam and can be restricted in the interest of public order and discipline.
Relevance: Muskan’s act of asserting her religious identity falls within the broader debate of individual rights vs institutional regulations.
4️⃣ Legal Analysis of Muskan Khan’s Actions
Freedom of Expression
Muskan raised her hand and said “Allahu Akbar.”
This can be seen as an expression of religious belief, which is protected under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression).
However, expression must not incite violence or public disorder (Article 19(2) limits).
Non-Discrimination and Right to Education
The heckling by the group was an attempt to intimidate her based on religion.
Such acts violate constitutional guarantees of equality and the right to access education without discrimination.
Balance with Institutional Rules
Educational institutions may regulate attire for uniformity, discipline, and safety.
However, any regulation must be reasonable, non-discriminatory, and justified in law.
5️⃣ Key Takeaways
| Aspect | Principle | Application to Muskan Khan |
|---|---|---|
| Freedom of Religion | Article 25 | Asserting religious identity through hijab/words is protected unless prohibited for valid reasons |
| Equality | Article 14 | Heckling or discrimination based on religion violates equality |
| Education | Article 21A | Right to education cannot be denied based on religious attire |
| Expression | Article 19(1)(a) | Saying “Allahu Akbar” is protected free speech, unless it incites violence |
| Institutional Rules | Reasonable restrictions | Colleges can impose rules, but must balance discipline with constitutional rights |
✅ Summary
Muskan Khan’s actions reflect assertion of constitutional rights: freedom of religion, equality, and freedom of expression.
The heckling was unconstitutional because it targeted her religious identity and interfered with her right to education.
Case law (Shirur Mutt, Muslim Airman, Karnataka hijab case) provides the framework to assess religious expression, distinguishing essential practices from non-essential customs.
The key legal principle: constitutional rights protect peaceful expression of religion, but institutions can impose reasonable restrictions for discipline and public order.
RELATED Blog
0 comments