The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a student who challenged a school’s refusal to allow her to wear a headscarf with the prescribed uniform. The court held that the petitioner had not provided sufficient material to establish that wearing a headscarf inside the classroom was an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla delivered the judgment on August 21. The court also referred to decisions of various high courts which have held that wearing a headscarf is not established as an essential part of the Islamic faith for women, as reported by Bar and Bench.
Allahabad HC Refers To Karnataka Hijab Verdict
The court observed that the Karnataka High Court’s ruling upholding restrictions on hijab in educational institutions continues to have persuasive value.
The issue has not been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court following a split verdict in the Karnataka hijab case. The Allahabad High Court noted:“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.”
The Bench further said: “We are of opinion that the Karnataka Full Bench, like the other Courts, is nevertheless a persuasive authority of great value and there is no reason for us to take a different view.”
Court Says Essential Religious Practice Claim Was Not Established
The petitioner argued that wearing a headscarf was an essential religious practice and therefore deserved constitutional protection under Article 25.
The High Court, however, rejected the argument, pointing out that the petition did not contain sufficient pleadings or authoritative religious material to establish such an obligation.
The court said:“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 Bench also stressed that a constitutional claim based on Article 25 cannot rest merely on an assertion. It added: “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.”
What Did The Student Claim?
The petition was filed by a student of Tagore Public School in Attarsuiya, Prayagraj. She alleged that the school authorities did not admit her to Class XI because she wanted to continue wearing a headscarf.
The student told the court that she had been wearing a hijab since Class VI. The school, however, maintained that wearing an additional headscarf along with the prescribed uniform would breach its dress-code policy.
The court also rejected the student’s argument that she had acquired a right to wear the headscarf because she had previously done so without objection.
According to the High Court, merely allowing the practice in the past did not create a vested right requiring the school to modify or relax its uniform rules for Class XI admission.
Court On Uniform And School Discipline
The High Court further observed that when a school adopts a uniform dress code that is uniform, bona fide, non-discriminatory and aimed at maintaining discipline and institutional identity, decisions concerning the prescribed uniform primarily fall within the institution’s domain.
The ruling therefore places emphasis on the distinction between a personal religious practice and a practice that can legally be established as an essential religious practice entitled to protection under Article 25.
