The Allahabad Excessive Court docket final week dismissed a minor Muslim scholar’s plea looking for permission to put on a Hijab (scarf) along with her faculty uniform, observing that the petitioner had failed to put ample materials to ascertain that carrying a scarf was an important spiritual observe of the Islamic religion.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla additionally held {that a} scholar can not insist upon modifying a prescribed gown code the place it’s “uniform, bona fide, nondiscriminatory and supposed to keep up self-discipline and institutional identification“.
Importantly, the Court docket noticed that it had “no purpose” to take a special view from the Karnataka High Court’s 2022 Full Bench judgment, which held that carrying hijab by Muslim ladies doesn’t represent an important spiritual observe within the Islamic religion.
The Allahabad HC described the Karnataka Full Bench judgment as “persuasive authority of nice worth”, whereas noting that it was subsequently thought of by the Supreme Court docket in Aishat Shifa, the place the Prime Court docket delivered a split verdict.
The Bench famous that there is no such thing as a authoritative Supreme Court docket pronouncement lastly settling the problem.
Case in short
The petitioner (Sukaina Rizvi) is a minor scholar at a personal, unaided CBSE faculty named Tagore Public Faculty in Attarsuiya, Prayagraj. She had handed Class X and sought admission to Class XI in the identical faculty.
She moved the Excessive Court docket by way of her mom, looking for a mandamus directing the varsity authorities to allow her to put on a scarf “along with the uniform prescribed by the Faculty for all their college students”.
The lady claimed that she had studied within the faculty from Class VI to Class X and had worn a scarf all through that interval with out objection from the varsity. Nevertheless, she alleged that the varsity was now refusing her admission to Class XI as a result of she insisted on persevering with to put on the scarf.
It was her case that the donning of a shawl was an “important spiritual observe” of her religion and precluding her from carrying it as a part of her apparel, was violative of her elementary rights assured underneath Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Structure.
The college, then again, maintained that it was a personal unaided, co-educational establishment affiliated to the CBSE, with a uniform gown code relevant to all college students.
It was the stance of the Faculty’s principal that different ladies belonging to the identical spiritual neighborhood have been following the prescribed gown code and that granting the petitioner an exemption may have an effect on the varsity’s administration and self-discipline.
The State’s counsel argued that prescription of a uniform is basically a matter inside the coverage of the Faculty administration, the aim whereof is to uphold uniformity amongst college students attending their establishment.
Excessive Court docket’s observations
On the outset, the Excessive Court docket rejected the argument that the petitioner’s having worn a scarf in earlier courses created an enforceable proper to proceed doing so.
“Up to now, the Faculty won’t have raised objection to the petitioner carrying a scarf when she was studying within the decrease courses, both because of lethargy, inaction, lack of will, nonenforcement of the uniform coverage, even courtesy or hesitation, however that may not give rise to an estoppel in opposition to the Faculty after they determine to implement a uniform coverage, imposing their gown code“.
The Court docket clarified that the varsity had not even modified its uniform. Somewhat, the problem was the petitioner’s insistence on including a scarf to the prescribed uniform. It held:
“…as long as the gown code is uniform, bona fide, nondiscriminatory and supposed to keep up self-discipline and institutional identification, the selection of the prescribed uniform primarily lies inside the area of the Faculty“.
The Bench stated a prescribed uniform serves a number of functions, together with self-discipline, equality amongst youngsters, institutional identification and avoidance of distinctions inside the classroom.
It additional noticed {that a} uniform relevant to college students of various faiths promotes a “faith impartial ambiance”.
On the argument that carrying a scarf was an important spiritual observe, the Court docket discovered the petitioner’s case to be a “naked assertion”, noting that there was no ample pleading or authoritative spiritual materials establishing that carrying a shawl contained in the classroom was compulsory upon the petitioner or that its non-observance would “alter the basic character of her religion”.
Contemplating the verdicts of the assorted Excessive Courts on this concern, the Bench additional noticed thus:
“Wherever this concern has arisen, the Excessive Courts have been unanimous in opinion that carrying a scarf will not be important a part of the Islamic religion for a ladies to don, within the absence of which, religion could be jeopardized”.
Particularly, the Bench thought of the Kerala Excessive Court docket’s resolution in Fathima Thasneem (Minor) v. State of Kerala and the Bombay Excessive Court docket’s ruling in Fathema Hussain Sayed v. Bharat Education Society, each regarding college students looking for to put on headscarves opposite to prescribed faculty uniforms.
It additionally thought of, intimately, the Karnataka High Court’s Full Bench judgment in Resham v. State of Karnataka, which had held that carrying hijab by Muslim ladies doesn’t type a part of an important spiritual observe in Islam.
The Allahabad HC famous that Resham was subsequently thought of by the Supreme Court docket in Aishat Shifa (Hijab Case-2 J.) v. State of Karnataka, whereby a break up verdict was delivered.
The HC famous that the matter was consequently required to be positioned earlier than the Chief Justice for structure of an applicable Bench, nevertheless, as of now, no authoritative Supreme Court docket pronouncement has settled the problem.
The Excessive Court docket nonetheless described the Karnataka Full Bench judgment as “persuasive authority of nice worth” and stated that “there is no such thing as a purpose for us to take a special view”.
The Court docket additionally thought of a 2024 Bombay Excessive Court docket ruling in Zainab Abdul Qayyum Choudhary & Ors. v. Chembur Trombay Education Society’s NG Acharya and DK Marathe College and Ors.
It famous that the Supreme Court docket had subsequently passed an interim order staying the clause prohibiting Hijab, Cap or Badge in that case, however careworn that an interim order with out causes “will not be a binding precedent” and is provisional in nature.
“The interim order of the Supreme Court docket doesn’t give any causes and is provisional in nature. Subsequently, we’re of opinion that the constant, preponderant and reasoned opinion, coming from totally different Excessive Courts within the nation, would have precedential worth albeit persuasive“, the Division bench stated.
The Court docket additionally famous that the pictures positioned on report confirmed that, aside from the petitioner, no different lady scholar, together with these belonging to the identical spiritual neighborhood, was carrying a scarf.
The Bench noticed that permitting particular person college students to depart from the prescribed uniform on subjective grounds would “militate in opposition to the thought of a uniform” and switch the authority to find out faculty self-discipline from the establishment to particular person college students.
The writ petition was finally dismissed.
Case Quotation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 618
