The debate over Karnataka’s hijab ban has resurfaced after Home Minister G Parameshwara announced on Tuesday that a decision would be made following thorough discussions on whether students should be permitted to wear the hijab during the upcoming SSLC exams.

“We still have a month before the SSLC exams, and we will hold detailed discussions before reaching a decision,” the minister told the media.

The hijab issue remains contentious, with Karnataka’s Minister for School Education and Literacy, Madhu Bangarappa, clarifying that the Congress government has yet to take a formal stance. “The matter is still pending before the Supreme Court,” Bangarappa stated on Monday, adding that he would consult with the home minister before providing further clarification.

However, the ongoing uncertainty has left educators concerned. “With exams approaching, clear guidelines are necessary to avoid confusion on the exam day,” said a headmaster of a government school in Bengaluru.

The controversy dates back to 2022, when six students from the Government PU College in Udupi alleged that they were barred from attending classes for wearing the hijab. Their protests triggered counterprotests, with Hindu students wearing saffron shawls in several schools.

In response, the government formed a committee and, on February 5, 2022, issued guidelines under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, prohibiting religious attire in institutions with a mandated dress code.

Legal battles followed, and on February 11, 2022, the Karnataka High Court issued an interim order banning all religious symbols, including hijabs and saffron shawls, in classrooms. On March 15, 2022, the court ruled that wearing the hijab was not an essential religious practice in Islam and upheld the government’s directive. The students challenged this verdict in the Supreme Court, which resulted in a split decision, leaving the case pending for review by a larger bench.

After the Congress party’s victory in the Karnataka assembly elections, senior minister Priyank Kharge hinted at plans to revoke bans on the hijab, halal cuts, and cow slaughter. However, these issues were not addressed in subsequent assembly sessions, leaving uncertainty over whether the hijab ban would be lifted.

BJP spokesperson Prakash S dismissed the discussions as inconsequential while the matter remains in court. “The Supreme Court will make the final decision, and we all must abide by it. Until then, these meetings serve no purpose,” he said.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that all persons with disabilities (PwD), regardless of the severity of their condition, must receive equal benefits in competitive examinations, including access to scribes and extra time.

Emphasizing that reasonable accommodation is a legal right rather than a privilege, the court directed the Union government to revise its 2022 office memorandum. This revision would eliminate distinctions between PwD and persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD), who are classified as having a disability of 40% or more.

A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that denying a scribe or additional time based on the level of disability violates the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. The ruling was issued in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Gulshan Kumar, who suffers from Focal Hand Dystonia (Writer’s Cramp) and was denied these accommodations in an examination.

The court rejected the classification between PwD and PwBD, ruling that all benefits available to PwBD candidates should also extend to PwD candidates. It stated that denying a scribe or extra time constitutes discrimination under the RPwD Act. The bench also emphasized that examination authorities must implement accessibility measures to ensure compliance with the law.

Kumar had challenged the August 10, 2022, office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. While the memorandum extended some benefits to candidates with disabilities below 40%, he argued that it did not fully uphold the principles of reasonable accommodation.

The Supreme Court agreed, noting that inconsistencies in implementation were creating confusion and discrimination. “Some examination bodies have refused to provide benefits to PwD candidates due to a lack of a clear grievance redressal mechanism, leading to inefficiency and unfair treatment,” the court observed.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the argument that private recruitment bodies are exempt from the RPwD Act. It reaffirmed that fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution are enforceable against private entities as well. Citing the Constitution bench ruling in Kaushal Kishor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016), the court asserted that the benefits granted by law must be available to all PwD candidates.

The government has been ordered to revise the 2022 guidelines within two months to ensure a standardized and non-discriminatory policy. The judgment also outlined key directives for enhancing examination accessibility and enforcing disability rights.

The bench mandated that all examination authorities and recruitment agencies must uniformly implement the revised guidelines. Additionally, it called for regular sensitization programs in educational institutions to promote awareness. To improve accessibility, examination bodies must provide various accommodations, including scribes, Braille and large print question papers, audio-recorded answers, and multiple testing formats.

To ensure effective implementation, the court ordered periodic reviews of examination policies, as well as training programs for examination officials and staff to address the needs of PwD candidates. It also recommended incentives to encourage individuals to volunteer as scribes.

A U.S. military transport aircraft is deporting migrants to India, marking the first such flight since the U.S. administration began repatriating illegal migrants in line with President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

A U.S. official, speaking anonymously to Reuters on Monday, confirmed that a C-17 aircraft had departed for India with migrants on board, though it would take at least 24 hours to arrive. No further details were provided.

Indian officials have not commented on the development, and the exact number of deportees remains unknown. The C-17 heavy-lift transport aircraft can accommodate up to 130 passengers.

A spokesperson for the U.S. embassy declined to disclose specifics about the flight, stating, “The United States is rigorously enforcing its borders, tightening immigration laws, and deporting illegal migrants. This sends a clear message: illegal migration is not worth the risk.”

According to Reuters, India is the farthest destination for the Trump administration’s military deportation flights. Trump has increasingly relied on the U.S. military to execute his immigration policies, including deploying additional troops to the southern border with Mexico, using military aircraft for deportations, and repurposing military bases to house migrants.

The Pentagon has facilitated the deportation of over 5,000 migrants detained in El Paso, Texas, and San Diego, California. Military aircraft have previously transported migrants to Guatemala, Peru, and Honduras.

In one instance, Colombian President Gustavo Petro initially barred two U.S. military planes carrying deported Colombians from landing but later relented after Trump threatened trade tariffs on Colombian exports to the U.S.

An American official disclosed that over 1,100 illegal Indian migrants were deported between October 2023 and September 2024. The last publicly known U.S. deportation flight carrying Indian nationals took place on October 22, repatriating about 100 individuals via a charter flight.

The U.S. has seen a “steady increase” in the deportation of illegal Indian migrants in recent years, the official noted during a virtual briefing last year.

India has expressed willingness to collaborate with the Trump administration on addressing illegal immigration, aiming to strengthen bilateral ties. External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal stated last month that India opposes illegal migration due to its connections with organized crime and will repatriate all undocumented Indian nationals after verifying their identity.

While Jaiswal refrained from commenting on the exact number of illegal Indian immigrants in the U.S., he assured that India would take necessary steps to facilitate their return. Sources familiar with the situation, speaking anonymously, indicated that U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimates suggest there are approximately 18,000 illegal Indian migrants in the U.S.

Deporting migrants via military flights is costly. Reuters reported that a recent deportation flight to Guatemala cost around $4,675 per migrant. A senior American official emphasized the need to raise awareness about the dangers of illegal migration and the exploitation of migrants by unscrupulous travel agencies.

The U.S. is strengthening its collaboration with the Indian government to tackle this issue and has received “very positive” cooperation from New Delhi, according to Royce Bernstein Murray, Assistant Secretary for Border and Immigration Policy.

“In the fiscal year 2024, which ended in September, the U.S. repatriated over 1,100 Indian nationals. This is part of a growing trend in removals of Indian migrants over recent years,” Murray said.

Regarding the October 22 charter flight, she noted that such flights typically carry over 100 individuals and described the operation as “smooth,” highlighting “excellent cooperation from the Indian government.”

Murray did not specify the total number of charter flights deporting Indian migrants last fiscal year but mentioned that some individuals were also repatriated via commercial flights. She pointed out that while illegal migration from India is less frequent than from neighboring American countries, it remains a concern.

“We continue to strengthen our partnership with the Indian government to address issues such as human smuggling and fraudulent travel agencies that prey on vulnerable migrants,” she said.

Anonymous sources confirmed that India has been cooperating with the U.S. on this matter, emphasizing that both nations prioritize curbing illegal migration. “We want individuals to travel abroad for work or education through legal channels. This is a challenge not just with the U.S. but with many other countries as well,” said one source.

Murray acknowledged the need for greater public awareness regarding the consequences of illegal migration. “We must enhance our messaging to ensure people have accurate information about legal pathways to the U.S. and the risks of irregular migration,” she stated.

Efforts must also focus on protecting young individuals who aspire to study in the U.S., ensuring they receive reliable information about student visas and legal migration options.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security recently conducted a “charter removal flight” to repatriate an unspecified number of Indian nationals who failed to establish a legal basis to stay in the U.S., according to an official statement from the U.S. embassy.

The statement did not disclose the number of deported Indian nationals on the October 22 flight. However, sources indicated that the deportation resulted from ongoing U.S.-India cooperation to combat illegal migration.

“On October 22, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), conducted a large-frame charter removal flight to India, repatriating Indian nationals who lacked a legal basis to remain in the United States,” the statement read.

India’s Border Security Force (BSF) on Saturday prevented Border Guards Bangladesh (BGB) from constructing an “unauthorized bunker” within 150 meters of the international boundary, marking the second such intervention in as many days amid heightened border tensions between the two neighbors.

Officials from BSF’s Eastern Command in Kolkata reported that the construction, initiated Friday night on the Bangladeshi side, was detected during a patrol. This follows a similar incident on Friday when BSF halted BGB from building a “sentry bunker” in the Dahagram Angarpota area along the North Bengal frontier.

“On February 1, a BSF team from sector Kishanganj observed fortification work being carried out by Bangladeshi nationals along the Kulik River embankment within 150 yards of the zero line,” a senior official stated. The site falls under BGB’s Govindpur border outpost.

After BSF raised objections during a flag meeting, BGB personnel agreed to stop the construction. “Joint India-Bangladesh guidelines prohibit defense-related structures within 150 yards of the international boundary. However, BGB continued these activities despite the existing regulations,” the official added.

BSF has recently noted that BGB personnel have been constructing bunkers beyond the 150-yard limit and arming their forces with both lethal and non-lethal weapons. While such constructions outside the restricted zone had not triggered objections, the latest incident has intensified tensions.

This standoff comes amid growing friction between the two border forces since Bangladesh’s regime change last August. Tensions further escalated last month when clashes erupted between Indian and Bangladeshi villagers in Malda, North Bengal, over BSF’s efforts to build a border fence, leading to stone-pelting incidents.

The ongoing border disputes reflect broader shifts in bilateral relations since former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled to India on August 5 amid political upheaval. Under her administration, several Indian infrastructure projects had been approved, but the new caretaker government, led by Muhammad Yunus, has adopted a different stance.

Since August, BGB has increasingly opposed BSF construction at multiple previously sanctioned sites along the 4,156-kilometer shared border. Recent months have also seen growing confrontations involving local communities, allegations of crop theft, and social media-driven tensions, signaling a shift from conventional border management challenges to more localized conflicts.