In June 2024, the Bombay High Court, with Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S Patil presiding, delivered a significant ruling on dress code policies in educational institutions. The court upheld a Chembur, Mumbai college’s dress code prohibiting hijabs, niqabs, burkas, stoles, and caps on campus. The ruling came after nine female students challenged the dress code, claiming it violated their fundamental rights. Despite their arguments, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the dress code served a legitimate academic interest.
This article examines the court’s decision, including the petitioners’ arguments, the college’s counter arguments, and the court’s rationale. It also explores relevant legal frameworks and UGC guidelines on equity in higher education.
College Dress Code Specifics and the Court’s Rationale
The college’s dress code was designed to prevent the revelation of students’ religious identities within the campus. The court’s rationale was that the dress code was intended to maintain a focus on education rather than religious identification. Additionally, it was noted that the restriction was limited to the college premises and did not infringe on the students’ freedom of expression outside the campus.
Background of the Case of Dress Code
Details of the Dress Code Implemented by the College: The college implemented a dress code for students pursuing their second and third-year undergraduate courses. The dress code stipulated that student attire should be formal, decent, and not reveal religious affiliation. This included restrictions on wearing hijabs, niqabs, burkas, stoles, and caps on campus.
Students’ Challenge and Claims of Fundamental Rights Violations: Some students challenged this dress code, claiming it violated their fundamental rights. They argued that the dress code was arbitrary and discriminatory, infringed on their right to choose their attire, violated their right to privacy, restricted their right to expression under Article 19(1)(a), and limited their right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Petitioners’ Arguments on Dress Code
Dress Code as Arbitrary and Discriminatory: The petitioners contended that the dress code implemented by the college was arbitrary and discriminatory, asserting that it lacked a fair and rational basis. They argued that the dress code unfairly targeted specific forms of religious attire, such as hijabs, niqabs, burkas, stoles, and caps, without providing a legitimate justification for these restrictions. This, they claimed, resulted in unequal treatment of students based on their religious practices and personal choices of attire.
Furthermore, the petitioners emphasized that the dress code imposed by the college was not applied consistently or equitably, suggesting that it disproportionately affected female students who wore religious garments as part of their faith. They believed that the dress code was an unreasonable and unjustified intrusion into their personal liberties, and that it imposed unnecessary constraints on their ability to freely express their religious identity.
The petitioners also highlighted that the dress code failed to consider the diverse cultural and religious backgrounds of the student body. They argued that by enforcing a uniform dress code that prohibited religious attire, the college was disregarding the fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, the dress code should be designed to accommodate the diverse needs and practices of all students, rather than imposing blanket restrictions that disproportionately impacted certain groups.
Infringement on Rights to Choose Attire, Privacy, Expression (Article 19(1)(a)), and Freedom of Religion (Article 25): The petitioners contended that the dress code infringed on their fundamental rights, including:
- The right to choose their attire
- The right to privacy
- The right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a)
- The right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution
College’s Counterarguments
Equal Application of the Dress Code to All Students: The college asserted that the dress code was uniformly applied to all students, ensuring that no student was singled out or discriminated against based on their religion or any other factor. This uniformity aimed to create a fair and equal environment for all students.
Maintenance of Discipline and Prevention of Religious Identity Disclosure: The college maintained that the dress code was essential for maintaining discipline and decorum on campus. Additionally, it aimed to prevent the disclosure of students’ religious identities through their attire, thereby promoting a focus on education and reducing potential religious tensions or discrimination among students. The college emphasized that the dress code was designed to create a neutral and inclusive academic environment.
Court’s Reference to Previous Cases
- Fathema Hussain v. Bharat Education Society and Ors. (2002): In this 2002 case, the petitioner, a student of 4th class, challenged the school’s prohibition on wearing headscarves, claiming it infringed on her fundamental right to practice her religion. The school argued that the dress code was designed to maintain discipline and ensure uniformity among students. The court sided with the school, ruling that the dress code was a reasonable restriction that did not violate the student’s right to religious freedom. The court emphasized the importance of discipline and uniformity in an educational setting and deemed the school’s policy to be a legitimate means of achieving these objectives. Key Points of this case are:
- The case involved a challenge to a school’s prohibition on wearing headscarves.
- The petitioner argued that the prohibition violated her fundamental right to practice her religion.
- The court upheld the school’s decision, stating that the dress code was intended to maintain discipline and uniformity among students.
- The court found that the restriction was reasonable and did not infringe upon the petitioner’s right to practice her religion within the educational environment.
Fatima Thanseem (Minor) v. State of Kerala (2019): In this 2019 case, the petitioners challenged a school’s dress code that restricted religious attire, arguing that it violated their rights to freedom of religion and privacy. The school maintained that the dress code was essential for promoting a secular and inclusive educational environment. The court upheld the school’s dress code, ruling that it served a legitimate academic purpose and was a reasonable restriction within the school context. The court emphasized that the dress code was uniformly applied to all students and was limited to the school premises, thereby not infringing on the petitioners’ fundamental rights. The decision underscored the importance of maintaining a secular atmosphere in educational institutions to ensure equality and prevent religious divisions. Key Points of this case are:
- The case concerned a school’s right to prescribe a dress code that included restrictions on religious attire.
- The petitioners argued that the dress code violated their fundamental rights to freedom of religion and privacy.
- The court upheld the school’s dress code, noting that it served a legitimate academic purpose and promoted a secular educational environment.
- The court stated that the dress code did not infringe on the petitioners’ rights as it was applied uniformly to all students and was limited to the school premises.
Court’s Observations and Rulings on Dress Code
Non-infringement on Article 19(1)(a) or Article 25: The court observed that the college’s dress code did not infringe upon the students’ rights under Article 19(1)(a) or Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The dress code’s restrictions were deemed reasonable and not a violation of the freedom of speech and expression or the freedom of religion, as the restrictions were limited to the college premises and did not extend beyond.
Legitimate Academic Interest in Promoting Educational Focus: The court ruled that the dress code served a legitimate academic interest by promoting an educational focus. The court emphasized that the dress code aimed to reduce distractions related to religious identification, thus fostering a neutral and focused learning environment. This objective was considered crucial for maintaining the academic integrity and performance of the students.
Institutional Right to Maintain Discipline: The court affirmed the college’s institutional right to maintain discipline within its premises. The dress code was seen as a tool to uphold discipline and order among the student body. The court held that the college had the authority to implement rules and regulations, including dress codes, to ensure a conducive academic atmosphere.
Compliance with UGC Guidelines on Equity in Higher Education: The court noted that the college’s dress code complied with the University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines on equity in higher education. The UGC’s Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions Regulations, 2012, mandate that institutions take measures against discrimination based on caste, creed, religion, and language. The court found that the dress code, by preventing the display of religious identities, promoted a non-discriminatory environment in line with these guidelines.
Constitutional Right of the College to Manage Its Affairs: The court upheld the college’s constitutional right under Article 19(1)(g) to manage its own affairs. This right includes the ability to prescribe and enforce a dress code for students. The court ruled that the college’s decision to implement the dress code fell within its rights to operate autonomously and manage its internal regulations, provided that such rules were reasonable and non-discriminatory.
So, the court’s observations and rulings emphasized that the dress code implemented by the college in Chembur, Mumbai, was a reasonable measure aimed at promoting academic focus, maintaining discipline, and ensuring compliance with equity guidelines. The court upheld the college’s authority to manage its own affairs while ensuring that the rights of students were not unduly infringed.
Explanation of Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India
Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression: Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. This fundamental right is crucial for the functioning of a democratic society, allowing individuals to express their thoughts, opinions, and ideas freely.
Other Aspects Included
Freedom of Press: The right ensures that the press can operate without censorship, providing information and opinions to the public.
Freedom of Commercial Speech: This includes advertising and other forms of commercial communication, allowing businesses to promote their products and services.
Right to Broadcast: Individuals and entities have the right to disseminate information and ideas through various media, including radio and television.
Right to Information: Citizens have the right to access information held by public authorities, promoting transparency and accountability.
Right to Criticize: This right allows individuals to critique the actions and policies of the government and public officials.
Right to Expression Beyond National Boundaries: Citizens can express their views and opinions on international platforms.
Right to Silence: Individuals have the right not to speak or express themselves if they choose not to.
Essential Elements of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India
Exclusive to Citizens: This right is available only to Indian citizens and not to foreign nationals. Only Indian citizens can fully exercise the freedom of speech and expression as outlined in Article 19(1)(a).
Medium of Expression: It includes the right to express one’s views and opinions on any issue through various mediums. This encompasses spoken words, written communication, printing, pictures, films, movies, and any other form of expression.
Qualified Right: This right is not absolute. The government has the authority to frame laws that impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. These restrictions are necessary to balance individual rights with the interests of society and the state.
Availability to Citizens and Reasonable Restrictions
The right to freedom of speech and expression is available exclusively to citizens of India and does not extend to foreign nationals. This means that only Indian citizens are entitled to enjoy the full scope of this right, including the ability to express opinions freely, access information, and engage in various forms of communication.
However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. The government may impose limitations in certain circumstances to balance individual freedoms with the broader interests of society. These restrictions can be applied in the interest of:
Sovereignty and Integrity of India: Measures can be taken to prevent speech that threatens the unity and integrity of the nation.
Security of the State: The government can restrict speech that poses a threat to national security, such as incitement to violence or terrorism.
Friendly Relations with Foreign States: Speech that could harm India’s diplomatic relations with other countries can be regulated.
Public Order: To maintain public peace and prevent chaos, speech that incites violence or causes public disorder can be restricted.
Decency or Morality: Obscene or indecent expressions can be regulated to uphold societal standards of decency and morality.
Contempt of Court: Speech that disrespects the judiciary or undermines the authority of the courts can be restricted to ensure the proper functioning of the legal system.
Defamation: Speech that harms the reputation of individuals can be restricted to protect against libel and slander.
Incitement to an Offense: Speech that encourages others to commit crimes can be regulated to prevent criminal activity.
These restrictions are designed to ensure that the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression does not harm the rights of others or the interests of the nation. They reflect the need to balance individual liberties with the collective good and maintain social harmony and national security.
Explanation of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution
Freedom of Conscience and Religion: Article 25 guarantees all individuals the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. This right ensures that every person in India can follow their religious beliefs, perform religious rituals, and spread their religious ideas without interference from the state. However, this freedom is subject to public order, morality, and health.
Provisions for Regulation and Social Welfare Reforms: Article 25(2) permits the state to regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political, or other secular activities associated with religious practices. This ensures that religious activities do not conflict with broader social and economic policies. Additionally, the state can implement social welfare and reform measures, even if they interfere with religious practices. This includes opening Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Specifics on Wearing Kirpans and Reference to Various Religions: The Article specifically mentions that the wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be considered an essential part of the profession of the Sikh religion. This provision acknowledges the significance of kirpans in Sikhism and protects the right of Sikhs to wear them.
Furthermore, Article 25 includes an explanation that references to Hindus in sub-clause (b) shall also include persons professing the Sikh, Jaina, or Buddhist religions. This ensures that religious institutions of a public character are open to all members of these communities, promoting inclusivity and equality among different religious groups.
By providing these rights and outlining these regulations, Article 25 seeks to balance individual religious freedoms with the state’s responsibility to maintain public order and promote social welfare.
UGC Guidelines on Equity in Higher Education
Promotion of Non-Discrimination Based on Caste, Creed, Religion, and Language: The University Grants Commission (UGC) emphasizes the promotion of equity and non-discrimination in higher educational institutions. According to the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, institutions are required to take measures to prevent discrimination based on caste, creed, religion, and language. These measures ensure that all students have equal opportunities and are treated fairly, fostering an inclusive academic environment.
Rashtriya Uchhatar Shiksha Abhiyan and National Education Policy 2020: The Rashtriya Uchhatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) is a central government scheme aimed at improving the quality of higher education in India. It focuses on increasing access, equity, and excellence in state higher education institutions. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 also stresses the importance of equity and inclusion. It outlines strategies to provide equitable educational opportunities to all students, regardless of their socio-economic background. These policies support the UGC’s objectives of creating a non-discriminatory academic environment.
Guidelines for Equitable Opportunities for Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups: The UGC has issued specific guidelines to ensure equitable opportunities for socio-economically disadvantaged groups (SEDGs) in higher educational institutions. These guidelines aim to make institutions more inclusive, sensitive, and responsive to the needs of SEDGs. They include provisions for financial support, reservations in admissions, and the implementation of special programs to support these students. The goal is to minimize the educational disparities faced by SEDGs and to create a level playing field in higher education.
Application of Guidelines to All Students, Preventing Discrimination Through Dress Code: The guidelines issued by the UGC apply to all students, regardless of their caste, creed, religion, or language. This comprehensive approach ensures that no student is discriminated against based on their attire or religious identity. By implementing dress codes that prevent the disclosure of religious identities, educational institutions aim to foster a sense of unity and equality among students. Such policies help in minimizing biases and creating a non-discriminatory academic environment. The guidelines ensure that dress codes are applied uniformly to all students, preventing any form of religious or cultural discrimination.
Court’s Judgement On Dress Code
Upholding of the Dress Code as Serving a Legitimate Academic Interest: The Bombay High Court concluded that the dress code implemented by the college serves a legitimate academic interest. By focusing on promoting a distraction-free educational environment, the court recognized the college’s intention to prioritize academic discipline and unity among students.
Uniform Application and Limitation to College Premises: The court emphasized that the dress code was applied uniformly to all students, without any bias or discrimination. Additionally, the restriction was limited to college premises, ensuring that students’ freedom of expression and religious practices outside the campus were not infringed upon.
Alignment with Previous Rulings and UGC Guidelines: In its ruling, the court noted that the dress code was in alignment with previous judicial decisions and the guidelines set forth by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The adherence to established legal precedents and regulatory frameworks further validated the college’s policy.
Emphasis on Non-Discriminatory Learning Environment: The court underscored the importance of maintaining a non-discriminatory learning environment. By enforcing a dress code that prevents the display of religious affiliations, the college aimed to create an atmosphere of equality and inclusiveness, free from any form of religious or cultural discrimination.
Implications for Future Cases on Similar Issues: The Bombay High Court’s ruling in this case sets a significant precedent for future cases concerning dress codes and religious attire in educational institutions. This decision can influence several aspects of similar legal disputes and shape the landscape of educational policies and constitutional rights in India. Here are the detailed implications:
Legal Precedent and Judicial Guidance for Future
The ruling builds on precedents set by earlier cases such as Fathema Hussain v. Bharat Education Society and Ors. (2002) and Fatima Thanseem (Minor) v. State of Kerala (2019), which supported the right of educational institutions to prescribe dress codes. This case further cements the judicial perspective that institutional regulations, if applied uniformly and serving legitimate purposes, do not necessarily violate individual constitutional rights.
Institutional Rights vs. Individual Rights: The decision reinforces the balance between institutional rights and individual rights. Educational institutions are given a certain degree of autonomy to implement policies that they deem necessary for maintaining discipline and fostering a conducive learning environment. This autonomy, however, is subject to judicial scrutiny to ensure that such policies do not violate fundamental rights. Future cases will likely weigh this balance, considering both the institutional objectives and the individual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
Interpretation of Articles 19(1)(a) and 25: The court’s interpretation of Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 25 (freedom of religion) will guide future judicial interpretations of these constitutional provisions. By ruling that the dress code did not infringe on these rights, the court set a standard for what constitutes reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression and religious practice in educational contexts. This interpretation will be crucial for future cases where similar constitutional rights are invoked.
Emphasis on Non-Discrimination and Equity: The ruling underscores the importance of non-discrimination and equity in educational policies, aligning with UGC guidelines and national educational policies. Future cases will likely consider whether dress codes and similar regulations are applied uniformly and whether they contribute to a non-discriminatory learning environment. This emphasis on equity will be a critical factor in judicial assessments of educational policies.
Impact on Educational Policy-Making: Educational institutions may look to this ruling as a validation of their authority to implement dress codes and other policies aimed at promoting discipline and equality. Policymakers may feel more confident in enacting regulations that seek to minimize distractions and promote academic focus, as long as they are careful to ensure these policies are applied uniformly and do not infringe on constitutional rights.
Influence on Public and Institutional Discourse: The ruling may influence public and institutional discourse on the role of religious attire in educational settings. By upholding the dress code, the court has set a tone for discussions on how to balance religious freedoms with the need for uniformity and discipline in educational environments. Institutions may use this ruling to support their policies, while advocates for religious freedoms may seek to challenge or refine the legal standards set by this decision.
Overall, the Bombay High Court’s decision underscores the balance between maintaining institutional discipline and respecting individual freedoms. It sets a precedent for future cases involving dress codes and religious attire in educational institutions, emphasizing that such policies, when implemented equitably, do not intrude on fundamental rights. This ruling is a significant step in the judicial interpretation of educational policies, constitutional freedoms, and non-discriminatory practices in India.
