Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years

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