Hijab case: Karnataka clears AIMIM leaders, keeps cases against Hindu students

The Karnataka government has stirred controversy by selectively dropping cases related to protests during the COVID-19 pandemic. The state cabinet recently approved the withdrawal of charges against All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leaders, including Zahiruddin Ansari, who were booked for organizing a ‘Hijab is our right’ procession in Kalaburagi district’s Aland city. The protest took place during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulted in cases filed under the Epidemic Diseases Act.
However, in a contentious decision, the cabinet declined to withdraw cases against Hindu students from Harihara of Davangere district, despite a sub committee’s recommendation for withdrawal. The students, including B.Com students Dhanush and Maruthi, were charged with unlawful assembly, rioting, and disrobing the hijabs of Muslim girls during a protest against the hijab in a local college. This refusal has drawn criticism, with the Opposition BJP questioning the move.
Karnataka state BJP president BY Vijayendra said, “They are doing appeasement politics and Chief Minister Siddaramaiah is trying to divert the main issue of MUDA land scam allegations by doing this.”
Senior BJP leader Ashwath Narayan said that the state government was withdrawing cases to appease one particular community.
In addition to this, the Karnataka Cabinet also refused to drop three cases against Union Minister V Somanna, who was booked during the Cauvery water agitations. The minister faces charges from his participation in protests, but the cases remain active despite political support for their dismissal.
The government’s selective approach in withdrawing cases has fueled debates on bias and political favoritism. Critics argue that the inconsistency in withdrawing cases, especially those recommended for withdrawal by a cabinet subcommittee, reflects unequal treatment of protesters based on their political or religious affiliations. Meanwhile, supporters of the government claim the decisions were made based on the nature and severity of each case, rather than any bias.