Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme 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

Latest Legal News