Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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