– Zunaira Syeda
Andhra Pradesh
A woman’s hijab is worn by her conscience and removed by force. Between the two lies a question the law cannot afford to evade: will it protect her freedom of belief or will it allow the duress to pass as social correction?
The Constitution did not guarantee freedom of conscience for moments of convenience. It exists precisely for moments like these when a woman’s religious practice is violated in public, and the Law must decide whether it stands with her dignity or with the crowd.
When a woman’s hijab is pulled off whether in anger or intimidation, the act is not personal misconduct alone. It is a public violation of her dignity, faith, and constitutional order. And the intensity of such an act is measured not only by what is done, but by how the law responds.
This Is Not About a Piece of Fabric
The hijab is often dismissed as “just a piece of cloth.” But the law does not protect cloth; it protects people and their beliefs. When someone forcibly removes a woman’s hijab, they are not expressing an opinion or engaging in debate, they are asserting control over her body and her belief.
For a Muslim woman, hijab is inseparable from conscience. It is tied to intention (niyyah), dignity (haya), and faith. To tear it away is to publicly humiliate her, to render her body contestable, and to announce that her religious commitment is subject to approval. This is not a disagreement. It is coercion.
A society that fails to name this clearly risks normalising violence under the disguise of expression.
What the Law Already Says
Indian law does not lack the tools to address such acts; it lacks the will to apply them consistently.
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess and practise religion. Interfering with a woman’s religious practice through force or intimidation is a direct violation of this guarantee.
Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty, has been repeatedly interpreted by the Supreme Court to include dignity, bodily autonomy, and privacy. Forcibly disrobing or humiliating a woman in public strikes at the heart of this protection.
Under criminal law, assaulting or disrobing a woman with intent to outrage her modesty is a punishable offence. Pulling off a hijab meets this threshold morally, legally, and constitutionally.
Treating such incidents as minor altercations, communal disturbances, or emotional reactions is not neutrality. It is an abdication of duty.
From Rule of Law to Rule of Sentiment
What deepens the harm is the response that often follows. Instead of accountability, questions are redirected: Why was she wearing it? Why did it provoke discomfort? Why didn’t she avoid the situation?
These questions do not seek justice; they redistribute the blame.
When rights are subjected to public comfort, freedom becomes conditional. When law bends to sentiment, it ceases to be law.
The Constitution was not designed to reflect the majority feeling; it was designed to restrain it.
If freedom were dependent on acceptance, it would no longer be a right but a revocable permission.
The Myth of ‘Liberation’
Sometimes such actions are defended using the language of liberation. But liberation that humiliates, intimidates, or violates consent is not emancipation; it is authoritarianism disguised as reform.
A woman does not become free when her choice is forcibly undone.
Freedom is exercised, not imposed. If consent is central to dignity then violating a woman’s religious consent is no different from violating her bodily autonomy.
Any state and government body that tolerates such logic legitimises violence in the name of progress.
What the Law Must Do
When a woman’s hijab is forcibly removed, the response of the Law must be clear, swift, and unequivocal.
It must:
Recognise the act as criminal, not incidental;
Protect the victim, not scrutinise her beliefs;
Hold the perpetrator accountable, not excuse the violence; and
Publicly reaffirm the right to religious conscience.
Anything less sends a dangerous message that some women’s dignity is negotiable.
What Islam Says
Islam does not sanctify humiliation, nor does it equate patience (sabr) with silence in the face of injustice. The Qur’an repeatedly calls for standing firm for justice, even when it is uncomfortable.
Responding through lawful resistance, speech, and civic engagement is not weakness. It is moral clarity. Faith does not retreat when attacked; it insists on dignity without mirroring cruelty.
The Final Question
The Question that We Must Answer: When a woman’s hijab is torn in public and the law hesitates, the injury extends beyond her. It fractures the promise of the Constitution itself.
The question is no longer abstract:
Will the law protect conscience, or will it wait until public humiliation and violence of religious conscience becomes ordinary enough to ignore?
A Law that cannot protect a woman’s right to remain covered cannot convincingly claim to protect her freedom at all.
