The Kerala High Court recently directed the police to ensure that a headmistress of a high school in Kottarakkara is allowed to enter the educational institution freely after she was allegedly stopped at the gate for wearing a churidar [Sindhu S Nair v Secretary, General Education Department & ors]

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan said that a person's choice of attire cannot be dictated by another person or by societal customs unless such a restriction has the backing of law.

The Court emphasised that when such dictates are issued against the individual choices of a citizen, it is the duty of the law-enforcing authority to take appropriate legal steps.

"What dress one wears is ordinarily a matter of personal choice of every citizen of this country. No one or society as a whole can dictate how a citizen should dress without the backing of the law. This is a part of the fundamental rights of every citizen," the Court said.

It added that clothes are an expression of culture, comfort, and individual choice which cannot be used to measure a person's worth or dignity.

The Court declared that a citizen's attire is her choice and cannot be restricted by any societal customs.

"I declare that a citizen's attire is his/her choice, and nobody can insist that it conform to society's customs, nor can anybody dictate that it be in a manner acceptable to society, especially when no law backs it."

Though the dispute appears to be a simple issue of whether a headmistress could wear a churidar instead of a saree during working hours, it raises broader questions concerning the dignity and autonomy of a woman, the Court SAID.

"The Constitution does not make a woman's dignity contingent on her conformity with another person’s preferred mode of attire. Dress is a personal choice," it added.

The Court further emphasised that the dignity or cultural significance attached to an attire is for the person wearing it to decide and cannot be imposed according to societal preferences.

"No one can restrict it, and no one can dictate which dress an individual must wear. The dignity and cultural tradition of an attire should be decided by the person concerned, not by society," the Court said.

Sindhu S Nair, Headmistress of Eswara Vilasom High School AT Kottarakkara, had approached the Court alleging that the school's manager prevented her entry because she wore a churidar instead of a saree.

She said that on February 3, the manager entered her office and told her that she should no longer wear churidar in school. The manager even instructed the security personnel not to allow Nair inside the school if she came wearing one, the Court was told.

The following day, when Nair arrived at the school wearing a churidar, she was stopped at the gate by the security, as per the plea.

She then approached the police and based on a complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered. Nair thereafter moved the High Court seeking police protection and action to disqualify the manager.

Nair relied on a circular issued by the Directorate of General Education which permits teachers to wear churidar.

The manager denied the allegations and told the Court that he had never imposed a dress code on Nair.

The Court did not enter into the allegations in depth in view of a pending inquiry against the manager.

However, the Court said that a saree may be a graceful and respectful form of attire to one individual but its dignity cannot be converted into a compulsory uniform by force of individual preference.

Similarly, the Court added that a churidar, when worn decently and appropriately in a professional setting, does not diminish the competence, decorum or authority of the headmistress.

The Court also found that a circular issued by the Directorate of General Education permits teachers to wear a churidar.

The headmistress could not have been prevented from entering the school on the ground that she had worn a churidar, the Court concluded.

While parting with order, the Court clarified that the competent authorities would be free to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law

Advocates Syam J Sam and Daniel Mathews Koshy appeared for Nair.

Advocates VA Muhammed and M Sajjad appeared for the school manager.

Government Pleader Shahina Hameed represented the State authorities 

[Read Judgment]