BACKGROUND
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. 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 the Supreme Court.
Shri Altaf Khan, the learned Counsel for the college students, argued that the college’s newly prescribed dress code unjustifiably prohibited Muslim students from wearing hijabs or nakabs, labelling such attire as indecent while permitting other formal and decent dresses for students. He asserted that this restriction infringed on the students’ rights to expression, dignity, and bodily integrity under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The counsel claimed that the dress code was discriminatory, violating the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, and contradicting the inclusiveness intended by various regulations. He cited several judgments, including those from the Indian Supreme Court and international courts, to substantiate his contention that the dress code should be quashed. Furthermore, he argued that wearing a hijab or nakab is an essential religious practice, and prohibiting it violated the petitioners’ rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a).
Shri Anil Anturkar, the learned Senior Advocate for the Education Society, opposed the petitioners’ contentions, stating that the college’s dress code instructions did not violate the students’ rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution. He clarified that the college did not issue the notice-cum-WhatsApp message dated 01/05/2024, but only implemented the dress code instructions, which applied uniformly to all students without targeting any particular religion. The dress code aimed to ensure that students’ religions were not revealed, thereby maintaining discipline and focus on studies. The college provided a changing room for female students’ comfort and argued that it had the legal authority to prescribe a dress code as part of its internal administration and discipline. Referring to the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Resham v. State of Karnataka, which stated that wearing hijabs or nakabs was not an essential religious practice, Anturkar emphasized that the dress code did not infringe on constitutional rights. He noted that the petitioners knew of the dress code before enrolling and questioned their motives, suggesting they sought media attention. Therefore, he argued, the petition lacked merit and should be dismissed.
UPDATE
The division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S Patil of The Bombay High Court on Wednesday observed that the dress code prohibiting students from wearing hijab, nakab, burka, stole, cap etc. on the campus of a Mumbai college is in students’ larger academic interest. The Bombay High Court, referencing previous similar cases and judgments, upheld the college’s dress code. The court emphasized that the dress code was intended to achieve uniformity among students, maintaining discipline and supporting the administration’s efforts. It cited the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Resham v. State of Karnataka, which upheld a government order prescribing a dress code excluding hijabs, and other cases where similar challenges to dress codes were dismissed. The court referred to several previous judgments, including the Bombay High Court’s own ruling in Fathema Hussain v. Bharat Education Society and the Kerala High Court’s decision in Fatima Thanseem (Minor) v. State of Kerala. Both cases upheld the institutions’ rights to prescribe dress codes. The court noted that there was insufficient pleading to support the claim that wearing hijabs or nakabs constituted an essential religious practice. The court dismissed the writ petition, supporting the college’s dress code as a measure that did not violate the students’ fundamental rights. The court found the dress code to be in line with UGC regulations and other educational policies aimed at promoting a non-discriminatory environment.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – PRATYASA MISHRA
