Not essential religious practice: Allahabad High Court rejects Muslim student’s plea to wear hijab in school

The Allahabad High Court recently rejected a Muslim student’s plea seeking directions to allow her to wear a (hijab) headscarf in addition to the uniform prescribed by her school [Sukaina Rizvi v State of UP and Others]

In a judgment delivered on August 21, a bench of JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla noted that High Courts have been unanimous in their opinion that wearing a headscarf is not essential part of the Islamic faith for a woman.

Pertinently, the Court also said that Karnataka High Court’s decision against wearing of hijabs in schools continues to hold the field as the Supreme Court is yet to settle the dispute after a split verdict 

“In view of the difference of opinion, the matter was directed to be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for the constitution of an appropriate Bench. There is no authoritative pronouncement as yet by the Supreme Court, finally settling the issue, arising from the judgment of the Karnataka Full Bench. We are of opinion that the Karnataka Full Bench, like the other Courts, is nevertheless persuasive authority of great value and there is no reason for us to take a different view,” it noted. 

The Court refused to accept the petitioner’s argument that wearing a headscarf was an essential religious practice for her.

There is no pleading or authoritative religious text or material placed on record, sufficient by itself to establish, that the practice about the obligation to wear a scarf inside the classroom, is obligatory and the non-observance thereof would alter the fundamental character of the petitioner's faith, the Court said.

“A claim, placing reliance upon Article 25 of the Constitution, cannot be accepted for the sake of mere assertion, without the necessary factual and legal foundation laid for the purpose. A perusal of the writ petition shows that there are no pleadings to that effect by the petitioner, except that she has been doing it since she was a child and ever-since she joined the School in Class-VI,” the Bench added.

The Court further observed that so long as the dress code is uniform, bona fide, non-discriminatory and intended to maintain discipline and institutional identity, the choice of the prescribed uniform primarily lies within the domain of the school.

The Court was dealing with a petition moved by a student of  Tagore Public School at Attarsuiya in Prayagraj. The student said that the school authorities refused her admission in class XI on ground that she was not welcome with her headscarf.

She argued that she had worn a hijab since class-VI. In response to the student’s demand, the school said that the addition of a headscarf to the prescribed uniform would be contrary to the dress code. 

In the judgment passed on August 21, the Court said that the fact she might have worn a headscarf earlier without any objection cannot by itself create a vested or enforceable right to compel the school to alter or relax their uniform policy for students seeking admission to Class XI.

“In the past, the School might not have raised objection to the petitioner wearing a headscarf when she was reading in the lower classes, either due to lethargy, inaction, lack of will, non-enforcement of the uniform policy, even courtesy or hesitation, but that would not give rise to an estoppel against the School when they decide to enforce a uniform policy, enforcing their dress code,” it added.

The Court also underscored that it is always open to the school to change the uniform policy and alter the dress code. It went on to highlight the importance of uniforms in schools.

“The prescribed uniform that serves as a dress code for students attending a School serves many purposes. It instills discipline, equality amongst children, projects institutional identity and eschews distinctions within the classroom. A rule, requiring students to wear a uniform, promotes a religion neutral atmosphere as it applies to students professing different faiths without singling out any one on the basis of his/ her faith,” the Court said.

It further observed that no material was placed on record to establish a case that the donning of a headscarf is an essential part of religion for a Muslim female.

"The existing precedents would take care of the question, which go against her on this point," the Bench said.

Hence, it rejected the petition.

Advocate Mohd Monis represented the petitioner.

Additional Chief Standing Counsel Girijesh Kumar Tripathi appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]