The Allahabad High Court dismissed a minor Muslim student’s plea seeking permission to wear a hijab with her school uniform, ruling that the petitioner failed to establish that a headscarf constitutes an essential religious practice in Islam. According to the judgment delivered by Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla, a student cannot insist on modifying a prescribed school dress code when it remains uniform, bona fide, nondiscriminatory, and designed to maintain discipline and institutional identity.
Case Background at Tagore Public School
The petitioner, Sukaina Rizvi, is a minor student represented by her mother at Tagore Public School, a private, unaided CBSE school located in Attarsuiya, Prayagraj. Having completed Class X, she sought admission to Class XI at the same institution. Through her legal filing, she requested a mandamus to direct school authorities to allow her to wear a headscarf in addition to the mandatory uniform. The student stated she had worn a headscarf from Class VI to Class X without objections from the school, but alleged that administrators were now denying her Class XI admission due to her insistence on wearing the garment. She argued that the scarf was an essential religious practice and that restricting it violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
School and State Arguments on Uniform Policies
In response, the school maintained that as a private, unaided, co-educational institution affiliated with the CBSE, it enforces a strict uniform dress code for all students. According to the school’s principal, other female students belonging to the same religious community adhere to the dress code, and granting an exemption to the petitioner could disrupt administration and discipline. Counsel representing the State argued that setting a uniform policy falls squarely within the administrative domain of school management to ensure consistency among attendees.
Court Rulings and Precedential Value of Prior Judgments
The High Court rejected the argument that past leniency by the school established an enforceable right, noting that earlier lack of enforcement due to inaction or courtesy does not create an estoppel against the institution. The Bench emphasized that the school had not altered its uniform, but rather that the student demanded an addition to it. Citing prior jurisprudence, the Court observed it had no reason to depart from the Karnataka High Court’s 2022 Full Bench judgment in Resham v. State of Karnataka, which held that wearing a hijab is not an essential religious practice in Islam. The Allahabad Bench labeled that ruling a persuasive authority of great value, while acknowledging that the Supreme Court later delivered a split verdict in Aishat Shifa, leaving the issue without an authoritative final pronouncement from the apex court. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed under case citation 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 618.
Related reading