Photo: AFP
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a minor Muslim student seeking permission to wear a hijab with her prescribed school uniform, holding that she had not produced adequate material to demonstrate that wearing a headscarf constituted an essential religious practice in Islam.
A Bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla also ruled that students cannot demand alterations to a prescribed dress code when it is applied uniformly, is bona fide and non-discriminatory, and is intended to uphold discipline and the institutional identity of the school, Live Law reported.
The Court said it saw no justification to depart from the 2022 judgment of the Karnataka High Court's Full Bench, which had concluded that wearing the hijab by Muslim women does not constitute an essential religious practice under Islam.
The Allahabad High Court described the Karnataka ruling in Resham v. State of Karnataka as a highly persuasive judicial authority. It also noted that the judgment was later considered by the Supreme Court in the Aishat Shifa hijab case, which resulted in a split verdict.
The Bench pointed out that the issue has not yet been conclusively settled by an authoritative judgment of the Supreme Court.
The petitioner, Sukaina Rizvi, is a minor student of Tagore Public School, a private unaided CBSE-affiliated institution in Attarsuiya, Prayagraj. After completing Class X, she sought admission to Class XI at the same school.
Through her mother, she approached the High Court seeking directions to allow her to wear a headscarf along with the uniform prescribed for all students.
Rizvi claimed that she had attended the school from Class VI to Class X and had worn a headscarf throughout those years without facing objections. According to her petition, the school later refused to admit her to Class XI because she wanted to continue wearing the headscarf.
She argued that wearing the scarf was an essential religious practice and that preventing her from doing so violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The school disputed the claim, stating that it was a private, unaided, co-educational CBSE institution with a uniform dress code applicable to all students. Its principal submitted that other female students from the same religious community complied with the prescribed uniform and that granting an exemption could create administrative and disciplinary difficulties.
The State government also argued that determining the school's uniform was essentially a matter of institutional policy, aimed at ensuring uniformity among students.
The High Court rejected the argument that the student's previous permission to wear a headscarf created a legal right to continue doing so. The Bench clarified that the school had not altered its uniform; rather, the dispute arose because the student wanted to add a headscarf to the existing uniform.
According to the Court, a prescribed uniform serves several objectives, including maintaining discipline, promoting equality among students, preserving institutional identity and preventing visible distinctions between children inside the classroom.
The Bench also held that a common dress code for students belonging to different religions helps create a religion-neutral environment within an educational institution.
The Court further observed that allowing students to make individual departures from a uniform based on personal preferences could undermine the very concept of a common dress code and effectively shift control over school discipline from the institution to individual students.
On the question of whether wearing a hijab was an essential religious practice, the Court found that the petitioner's claim amounted to an unsupported assertion. It noted that the petition did not contain sufficient material or authoritative religious sources demonstrating that wearing a headscarf inside the classroom was obligatory or that not wearing one would fundamentally affect the practice of Islam.
The Bench considered earlier decisions, including the Kerala High Court's ruling in Fathima Thasneem (Minor) v. State of Kerala and the Bombay High Court's judgment in Fathema Hussain Sayed v. Bharat Education Society, both of which involved students seeking permission to wear headscarves despite prescribed school uniforms.
The Court also examined the Karnataka High Court Full Bench's decision in Resham v. State of Karnataka, which had concluded that wearing the hijab did not qualify as an essential religious practice in Islam.
The Allahabad High Court noted that the Karnataka judgment was later considered by the Supreme Court in Aishat Shifa (Hijab Case-2 J.) v. State of Karnataka. The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in that matter, following which the issue was to be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of an appropriate Bench.
The Allahabad HC observed that no final and authoritative Supreme Court ruling has so far resolved the question.
Despite this, the Bench said the Karnataka Full Bench decision remained a highly persuasive authority and found no reason to adopt a different position.
The Court also referred to a subsequent Supreme Court interim order staying the provision that prohibited hijab, caps or badges in the Karnataka case. However, it clarified that an interim order passed without reasons does not constitute a binding precedent and remains provisional.
The Bench further noted that photographs submitted before the court showed that, apart from the petitioner, no other girl student—including those from the same religious community—was wearing a headscarf.
Concluding that permitting individual exemptions would undermine the purpose of a uniform and affect the school's ability to maintain discipline, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.