Bombay High Court: Nine girl students (“petitioners”) of the respondent College (“College”) challenged the dress code instructions issued by the College for all its students that restricted the donning of articles revealing anyone’s religion, including hijab and niqab claiming them to be violative of the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles and of the . The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar* and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ., held that the instructions were issued to maintain discipline and ensure that the students do not reveal their religious faith through their attire. The Court further pointed out that the petitioners did not present sufficient material to prove that donning a hijab or niqab is an essential practice in Islam, and that the fundamental right of establishing and administering an educational institution would prevail over the fundamental right of an individual, since the former is in the larger interest.
Background
Petitioners challenged the instructions and notice issued by the College to all its students requiring them to follow the prescribed dress code. The petitioners alleged that the prescription of dress code restrained them from donning a hijab or niqab, and therefore affected their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles and Article of the .
The petitioners also contended that the instructions were violative of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012 (“Regulations”), the Rashtriya Uchhastar Shiksha Abhiyan (“RUSA”), and the National Education Policy, 2020.
Court’s analysis and decision
The Court referred to the following precedents and relevant decisions by other High Courts before reaching its decision-
Fathema Hussain Sayed v. Bharat Education Society, , wherein the directions of a high school to their student to not attend classes while wearing a headscarf were challenged; the instant Court held that merely asking a student to maintain the prescribed dress code could not be said to be a violation of the fundamental right of freedom of conscience and professing, propagating and practising the Islam faith.
Resham v. State of Karnataka, , wherein a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court had held that dress code prescription for all students was intended to treat them as a homogeneous class, serving the constitutional secularism, and that the object of prescribing a uniform code would be defeated of there was non-uniformity in the matter of uniforms.
Fathima Thasneem v. State of Kerala, , wherein the Kerala High Court held that though there may be a fundamental right for a student to choose a dress, there is also a fundamental right of establishing, managing and administering an educational institution. Between competing rights, an individual cannot seek the imposition of their fundamental right against the larger right of the educational institution.
In the light of the precedents, the Court in the instant petition noted that the dress code instructions must be treated as a discipline-maintaining exercise; the right to issue such instructions emanate from Articles and of the .
The Court further noted that the insistence of the College to adhere to the prescribed dress code was within the college premises and petitioners’ freedom of choice and expression was not otherwise affected, and that a changing room for girl students had been provided to facilitate them.
The Court noted the reliance the petitioners sought for their case from the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, wherein a higher educational institution is prohibited to discriminate based on caste, creed, religion, language etc. The Court clarified that the impugned instructions were applicable to all students irrespective of their caste, creed, religion or language, and in fact seek to prevent the students from disclosing their religious affiliations through their dress. Other guidelines the petitioners attempted to cement their case upon, which direct for inclusivity, equity, sensitivity, gender sensitisation, access to education etc., were found unviolated by the impugned instructions of the College.
Whether donning a hijab/niqab an essential religious practice?
The Court also dealt with the alternate contention of the petitioners to ascertain whether the donning of a hijab or niqab are an essential practice of the Islam faith. The Court referred to Commissioner of Police v. Acharya J. Avadhuta, , wherein the Supreme Court defined ‘essential practice’ as those practices that are fundamental to follow a religious belief, without which the fundamental nature of the religion would be changed. It is only such permanent, essential practices that are protected by the .
The Court noted that except for stating that the donning of a hijab or niqab are essential religious practices, on the basis of the English translations of the Kanz-ul-Iman and the Suman Abu Dawud, there was no other material placed on record to substantiate their claim by the petitioners, and therefore this contention failed before the Court.
The Court therefore held that the College’s instructions prescribing the dress code for its students did not suffer from any infirmity and was not violative of the . The Court added that the object of the dress code prescription is to not reveal the religion of a student, which is a step towards ensuring their focus on gaining knowledge and education, that is in their larger interest.
[Zainab Abdul Qayyum Choudhary v. Chembur Trombay Education Society’s N.G. Acharya and D.K. Marathe College of Art, Science and Commerce, Writ Petition (L) No. 17737 of 2024, decided on 26-06-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice A.S. Chandurkar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Altaf Khan, Akash Mangalgi, Shamsher Shaikh, Nilofar Sayyed, Gulfam Khan, Supriya Ghadge and Roohita Shaikh, Advocates
For the Respondents: Anil V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate; Harshavardhan Suryavanshi, V. Mannadiar, Dhannya Prasad, Yuvraj Narvankar, Mayur Mohite, Advocates; P.H. Kantharia, GP; Jyoti Chavan; Addl. G.P.; Pooja Patil, AGP; Devang Vyas, ASG; Savita Ganoo, D.P. Singh, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India
The post appeared first on .