Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.
Zainab Abdul Qayyum
Choudhary and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Chembur Trombay Education
Society’s and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No.17737 of 2024
Decided on 26.6.2024
(A) Mohammedan Law – Hijab – Issue of sartorial autonomy on touchstone of Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of Constitution of India, University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, Rashtriya Uchhastar Shiksha Abhiyan as well as National Education Policy, 2020 – Prescription of dress code for college – What has been done by College in form of Instructions for students is to prescribe a dress code at College – Regulation of such a dress code has to be treated as an exercise towards maintaining discipline at Institution – This right flows from recognized fundamental right to establish and administer an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 26 of Constitution of India – Under dress code, dress of students is expected to be formal and decent that should not reveal religion of any student – What is permitted for girl students is any Indian/Western non-revealing dress on college campus – Changing room for girls has been provided – Dress code is supported by College Administration by urging that it has right to administer its educational institution and that dress code is not intended to impose restrictions on students belonging to any particular religion – It is aimed at ensuring discipline in college campus and to prohibit students from revealing their religion through their clothes – Between competing rights, an individual could not seek imposition of his/her fundamental right as against larger right of educational institution.(Paras 5, 6 and 11)
(B) Mohammedan Law – Hijab – 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 fundamental right to establish and administer an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 26 of Constitution of India – Students are expected to attend educational institution to receive appropriate instructions for advancement of their academic careers – Insistence for following dress code is within college premises and petitioners’ freedom of choice and expression is not otherwise affected – Dress code as prescribed cannot be held to violate petitioners’ rights claimed under Article 19(1) (a) and Article 25 of Constitution of India – College Administration and Management have fundamental right to administer educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution and in exercise of that right as well as with object that education can be seriously pursued, same has been issued – Discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, religion, language is prohibited – Instructions issued by College are applicable to all students irrespective of their caste, creed, religion or language – Instructions seek to prevent students from disclosing their religion through their dress – All guidelines and instructions attempt to promote a non-discriminatory atmosphere in higher educational institutions – Object is to discourage discrimination on any count whatsoever – Instructions issued by College under which dress code has been prescribed for its students does not suffer from any infirmity so as to violate provisions of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of Constitution of India – Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 12, 13 and 16)
(C) Mohammedan Law – Hijab/Nakab – Whether donning of a Hijab or Nakab is an essential religious practise has to be determined historically as well as factually – Pleadings in writ petition to support plea that donning of a Hijab or Nakab is an essential religious practice however are insufficient – Except for stating that same constitutes an essential religious practice on the basis of English translation of Kanz-ul-Iman and Suman Abu Dawud, there is no material placed to uphold petitioners’ contention that donning of Hijab and Nakab is an essential religious practice – Contention in that regard fails. (Para 15)
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
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
(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....
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....
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
