Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.S. Chandurkar, Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.
Zainab Abdul Qayyum Choudhary & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Chembur Trombay Education Society’s , N. G. Acharya And D. K. Marathe College of Art , Science And Commerce & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No. 17737 of 2024
Decided On : 26-06-2024
DRESS CODE - EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - Article 19(1)(a), Article 25, Article 19(1)(g), Article 26 - The court examined the legality of a dress code imposed by an educational institution, determining that it did not violate the fundamental rights of students under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution of India. The court interpreted the dress code as a measure to maintain discipline and prevent the disclosure of students' religious identities, thereby promoting inclusivity and equality. The court found that the dress code was within the college's rights to administer its institution and did not constitute discrimination against any particular religion.
Fact of the Case:
Nine students challenged the dress code imposed by their college, which prohibited wearing Hijab or Nakab, claiming it violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution of India. They argued that the dress code was arbitrary and discriminatory, especially since it was introduced after their admission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dress code was a legitimate exercise of the college's authority to maintain discipline and did not infringe upon the students' rights. It held that the dress code aimed to prevent the revelation of students' religious identities and promote a uniform academic environment.
Issues: Whether the dress code imposed by the college violated the students' fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution of India, and whether wearing Hijab or Nakab constitutes an essential religious practice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the dress code did not violate the students' rights as it was applicable to all students and aimed at maintaining discipline. The court also determined that the petitioners failed to establish that wearing Hijab or Nakab was an essential religious practice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the validity of the dress code imposed by the college.
JUDGMENT
A. S. Chandurkar, J. - Nine Students pursuing their second and third year education for undergraduate courses at the College run by the first respondent - Chembur Trombay Education Society have raised a challenge to the Instructions issued to students requiring them to follow the prescribed dress code. In addition, a notice-cum-whatsapp message dated 01/05/2024 issuing instructions in the matter of following the dress code is also under challenge. The petitioners allege that the prescription of dress code as a result of which they are restrained from donning a Hijab or Nakab is arbitrary and discriminatory. It affects their fundamental rights guaranteed especially under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
2. According to the petitioners, prescription of dress code for the first time after they took admission at the College couple of years ago is against the spirit of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, the Rahistriya Uchhastar Shiksha Abhiyan - RUSA as well as the National Education Policy, 2020. While seeking admission to the second and third year undergraduate course for the Academic Sessions 2024-25, they learnt about the aforesaid Instructions on 07/05/2024. They raised an objection to the same by addressing e-mail to the College and the Management. Thereafter, they made a complaint before the Hon'ble Chancellor as well as other Authorities concerned. By urging that imposition of the dress code would affect their right to education, they have approached this Court.
3. Shri Altaf Khan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that there was no justification whatsoever on the part of the College to have prescribed the dress code for the first time. Under the said dress code, the petitioners who professed Islam religion were precluded from donning a Hijab or Nakab. On the contrary, students were permitted to wear a formal and decent dress while girl students were to wear any Indian/Western non-revealing dress. By this manner, Hijab and Nakab were sought to be labeled as indecent for being worn by girl students in the College. Referring to the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, it was submitted that the petitioners could not be prevented from dressing appropriately by donning a Hijab or Nakab since they had a right of expression. The restrictions imposed affected the petitioners' right to dignity and bodily integrity. In fact, the dressing items that were prohibited were decent and it could not be said that the restrictions imposed were in any manner reasonable. The action on the part of the College was discriminatory and also was not in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. Since the intention of various Regulations was the aspect of inclusiveness, the dress code prescribed resulted in indiscrimination. The learned Counsel to substantiate his contentions referred to the decisions in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, (2017) 20 SCC 1, Bijoe Emmanuel and others vs. State of Kerala and others, (1986) 3 SCC 615, St. Stephen's College Rep. by its Supreme Council vs. University of Delhi & Anr., 2008 (106) DRJ 401 (DB) and to the judgment dated 29.07.2005 passed by High Court of South Africa in the matter between Navaneetham Pillay vs. Kwazulu -Natal Mec of Education INA Cronje and others in Case No. AR 791 of 2005, judgment dated 07.11.2006 passed by the Constitutional Court of South Africa in Kwazulu-Natal Mec of Education Ina Cronje vs. Navaneethum Pillay [CCT 51/06][AR 791/05], judgment dated 17.10.2018 passed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations in Miriana Hebbadj vs. France [CCPR/C/123/D/2807/2016], judgment dated 07.12.2018 passed by the International Covenant on Civil and Politiccal Rights, United Nations in Sonia Yaket vs. France [CCPR/C/123/D/2747/2016] and urged that this Court be pleased to qua
The court established that educational institutions have the right to impose dress codes as part of their administrative authority, provided such codes do not discriminate against any particular reli....
(1) Prescription of dress code for college – Regulation of such a dress code has to be treated as an exercise towards maintaining discipline at Institution – This right flows from recognized fundamen....
Hijab restrictions – Right to wear hijab in School – Denial of education - Wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of Choice - It may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it ....
The right to wear hijab as a part of essential religious practice and the need to balance it with reasonable restrictions as provided by the Constitution of India.
The Madarsa Act, 2004 violates the secular principles of the Constitution and the right to quality education, rendering it unconstitutional.
Point of Law : Law could not be deemed to be unreasonable unless it was totally destructive or annihilative of the right under Art.30(1).
Notification for starting a new education institution - Permission for starting new colleges can be granted only to co-operative institutions, which have sufficient financial background and prior exp....
The right of minority educational institutions to administer admissions under Article 30(1) is subject to reasonable regulations by the State to maintain educational standards.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
