Karnataka hijab ban case and the split verdict of Supreme Court

Context:

Recently, the Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict on the Karnataka Hijab Ban Case.
One of the two judges on the Bench upholded the March 15 order of the Karnataka HC validating the government’s ban, and the other set aside the HC ruling.
With the two-judge Bench divided in its view, the matter was directed to be placed before Chief Justice of India (CJI) U U Lalit for appropriate directions.

What is split verdict:

A split verdict is passed when the Bench cannot decide one way or the other in a case, either by a unanimous decision or by a majority verdict.
Split verdicts can only happen when the Bench has an even number of judges.
This is the reason why judges usually sit in Benches of odd numbers (three, five, seven, etc.) for important cases, even though two-judge Benches known as Division Benches are not uncommon

What will happen after the split verdict:

In case of a split verdict, the case is heard by a larger Bench.
The larger Bench to which a split verdict goes can be a three-judge Bench of the High Court, or an appeal can be preferred before the Supreme Court.
In the case of the hijab verdict, the CJI, who is the ‘master of the roster’, will constitute a new larger Bench to hear the matter.

The Earlier cases with a split verdict:

In May, a two-judge Bench of the Delhi HC delivered a split verdict in a batch of petitions challenging the exception provided to marital rape in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Rajiv Shakdher held that the exception under Section 375 (which deals with rape) of the IPC is unconstitutional, while Justice C Hari Shankar held that the provision is valid.

What does the present SC bench said regarding the Hijab ban:

The Two-Judge bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia hearing the Hijab Case has shown splitting views over the issue.
Justice Hemant Gupta, upheld Karnataka’s prohibitive government order, saying apparent symbols of religious belief cannot be worn to secular schools maintained from State funds.
Whereas Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in his divergent views said secularity meant tolerance to “diversity”.
Wearing or not wearing a hijab to school was “ultimately a matter of choice”. For girls from conservative families, “her hijab is her ticket to education”.

Previous Judgements of Karnataka High Court on Hijab Case:

As per the High Court rulling, Wearing of hijab by Muslim women does not form a part of essential religious practices in Islamic faith. And it is not protected under the right to freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25, of the Constitution of India.
The court ruled that the prescription of school uniform does not violate either the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a) or the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
And the restriction against wearing of hijab in educational institutions is only a reasonable restriction constitutionally permissible, which the students cannot object to.
The court upheld the legality of the Karnataka Government’s order prescribing the wearing of uniforms in schools and pre-university colleges under provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.