Whether saree or churidar, no one can dictate what an individual wears: Kerala HC

What clothes one should wear is a matter of personal choice and should not be subjected to societal diktat or custom, and if such a right is violated, law-enforcing agencies can initiate appropriate action; the Kerala High Court has made it clear while issuing directions on a petition filed by a school headmistress who was allegedly stopped by her school manager for wearing a churidar instead of a saree.

The observation was made by Justice P V Kunhikrishnan while hearing a case filed by a headmistress at a school in Kottarakkara, who alleged that she was stopped by security personnel at the gate, as instructed by the school manager, for wearing a churidar instead of a saree, and that she was able to enter the school only with the help of the police.

Justice P Kunhikrishnan made it clear that, in the absence of a law dictating what a person should wear in accordance with societal customs or what is considered acceptable by society, no one could dictate what a citizen should wear, and that the choice ultimately rests with the individual.

The court also viewed that the matter should not be a contest between the dignity and modesty of a saree and a churidar, but rather concern the autonomy and professional choice of an educated woman and the extent to which a manager could exert his authority over an individual, while the perception that a saree is more dignified among a certain group cannot be used as a dictating tool to convert it into a uniform against an individual’s preference.

Similarly, the court noted that a churidar, when worn decently and appropriately in a professional setting, did not diminish the competence, decorum or authority of a headmistress.

The court also pointed out that a circular issued by the Directorate of General Education permitted teachers to wear churidars, and raised the question whether a manager of an educational institution could, in the absence of a valid, clear and uniformly applicable rule, insist that a woman employee dress according to his personal conception of what was proper.

The headmistress alleged that on February 3, the manager entered her office and threatened her, saying that she should not wear a churidar to work, while also instructing security personnel not to allow her into the premises if she failed to comply.

According to her, she was denied entry when she arrived at the school the following day wearing a churidar, although she was later able to enter with the help of a police officer. She further alleged that the manager had continuously harassed her and had threatened senior teachers and other members of the staff.

She told the court that she had filed a police complaint against the manager, who, according to her, had previously been convicted in a separate case involving obscenity and outraging the modesty of a woman.

The court refrained from making observations about the manager, as the educational authorities had already ordered an inquiry, but directed the authorities to take appropriate action if there were grounds to do so.