Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

Dress Code Does Not Violate Fundamental Rights, Aims to Prevent Disclosure of Religion  – Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Against College’s Hijab and Nakab Ban

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the dress code imposed by N.G. Acharya and D.K. Marathe College, which prohibits the wearing of Hijab and Nakab. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil, underscores the college’s authority to prescribe dress codes to maintain discipline and uniformity, holding that such regulations do not infringe on students’ fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners, nine students from the Chembur Trombay Education Society’s N.G. Acharya and D.K. Marathe College, contested the college’s dress code, arguing it violated their rights to freedom of expression and religious practice. They claimed that the prohibition of Hijab and Nakab was discriminatory and arbitrary, adversely affecting their right to education and personal dignity.

The High Court emphasized the college’s objective to ensure that students’ attire does not reveal their religion, aiming to foster an environment of uniformity and discipline. The bench noted, “The object behind prescribing the dress code is evident from the Instructions since they state that the intention is that a student’s religion ought not to be revealed. It is in larger academic interest of the students as well as for the administration and discipline of the College that this object is achieved.”

Addressing the petitioners’ argument about essential religious practices, the court found the evidence insufficient to establish Hijab and Nakab as essential to the practice of Islam. The court remarked, “Except for stating that the same constitutes an essential religious practice on the basis of the English translation of Kanz-ul-Iman and Suman Abu Dawud, there is no material placed to uphold the petitioners’ contention.”

The court extensively discussed the balance between individual rights and institutional regulations. It upheld the college’s right to enforce dress codes under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 26, stating, “The regulation of such a dress code has to be treated as an exercise towards maintaining discipline at the Institution. This right flows from the recognized fundamental right to establish and administer an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 26 of the Constitution of India.”

Justice A.S. Chandurkar noted, “The insistence for following the dress code is within the college premises and the petitioners’ freedom of choice and expression is not otherwise affected. Moreover, a changing room has also been provided for girl students.”

The dismissal of the petition by the Bombay High Court affirms the college’s authority to enforce a dress code aimed at maintaining discipline and uniformity. This judgment reinforces the balance between students’ fundamental rights and the administrative rights of educational institutions, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future. The court’s decision underscores the importance of institutional regulations in promoting a non-discriminatory and focused educational environment.

 

Date of Decision: 26th June, 2024

Zainab Abdul Qayyum Choudhary and Others vs. Chembur Trombay Education Society’s N.G. Acharya and D.K. Marathe College of Arts, Science and Commerce and Others

Similar News