The Bombay High Court today morning pronounced its Judgment dismissing a Writ Petition filed by students challenging restriction imposed by a College in Mumbai on wearing of Hijab, Nakab and Burkha among other things. The detailed judgment is now uploaded on its website.

In its decision, the High Court has held that regulation of dress code has to be treated as an exercise towards maintaining discipline at the institution, by the management exercising its right to administer the institution. The Court also held that prescription of a dress code by the College does not violate the rights of the students under Article 19(1)(a) or Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

The Division Bench of Justice A S Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh Patil held, "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. This is for the reason that students are expected to attend the educational institution to receive appropriate instructions for advancement of their academic careers. The insistence for following the dress code is within the college premises and the petitioners’ freedom of choice and expression is not otherwise affected".

Advocate Altaf Khan appeared for the Petitioners, 9 students of the Chembur Trombay Education Society’s, N.G. Acharya and D.K. Marathe College of Art, Science and Commerce, while Senior Advocate Anil V. Anturkar appeared for the College, Advocate Yuvraj Narvankar appeared for the Mumbai University, Advocate P.H. Kantharia for the State and ASG Devang Vyas for the Union of India.

The Court held that regulation of dress code has to be treated as an exercise towards maintaining discipline at the Institution. "The College Administration and the Management have a fundamental right to administer the educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and in exercise of that right as well as with the object that education can be seriously pursued, the same has been issued", the Court held.

The Court rejected the arguments of the Petitioners that the prescription amounted to discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, religion, language, prohibited by the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012. "We do not see how these Regulations further the case of the petitioners. The Instructions issued by the College are applicable to all students irrespective of their caste, creed, religion or language. In fact, the Instructions seek to prevent students from disclosing their religion through their dress", the Court held.

On the contention that donning of a Hijab and Nakab is an essential religious practice, the Court rejected the same due to lack of pleadings and proof for sustaining the argument. "The pleadings in the writ petition to support the plea that donning of a Hijab or Nakab is an essential religious practice however are insufficient. 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 that donning of Hijab and Nakab is an essential religious practice. The contention in that regard therefore fails", the Division Bench held.

The Court also observed that "The object behind issuing the same is that the dress of a student should not reveal his/her religion which is a step towards ensuring that the students focus on gaining knowledge and education which is in their larger interest."

The Court noted that the Counsel for the Petitioners was not able to justify the action of the Petitioners in seeking publicity of filing of the Writ Petition even prior to the same being considered for admission. "Since the petitioners are students, we say nothing more and let the matter rest at that", the Court said in this context.

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Altaf Khan, Akash Mangalgi, Shamsher Shaikh, Nilofar Sayyed, Gulfam Khan, Supriya Ghadge and Roohita Shaikh

Respondents: Senior Advocate Anil V. Anturkar, ASG Devang Vyas, Advocates Harshavardhan Suryavanshi, V. Mannadiar, Dhannya Prasad, Yuvraj Narvankar, Mayur Mohite, P.H. Kantharia, GP, Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P., Pooja Patil, AGP, Savita Ganoo, D.P. Singh

Cause Title: Zainab Abdul Qayyum Choudhary v. Chembur Trombay Education Society’s, N.G. Acharya and D.K. Marathe College of Art, Science and Commerce & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-OS:9252-DB]

Click here to read/download Judgment



Justice AS ChandurkarJustice Rajesh S PatilHijab BanHijab Row

Verdictum News Desk