Bombay HC dismisses students' plea challenging hijab ban by mumbai college

nitu 0


The Bombay High Court rejected the appeal submitted by nine female students on Wednesday, which challenged the Mumbai college's dress code, which forbade students from wearing items like a stole, cap, burkha, niqab, hijab, or other headgear on campus


A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh Patil said in open Court, "For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere." A copy of the entire judgment is awaited. 

During the hearing last week, the college submitted that the purpose of banning these items is to avoid the display of religious symbols, except for those considered part of the fundamental right to religion, such as the turban for Sikhs. Senior advocate Anil Anturkar, representing the college, explained that the ban applies to all religious symbols and is not targeted at Muslims. He emphasized that the college's policy is to prevent the open display of religious symbols unless they are essential under fundamental rights to religion.


The petitioners' attorney, Altaf Khan, made a distinction between this case and the Karnataka High Court's ruling regarding the prohibition of the hijab in junior colleges, pointing out that this case involves senior college students who are subject to a dress code but not a uniform. Khan contended that the dress code was implemented through WhatsApp without any legal backing, drawing a comparison to the Karnataka case where a uniform policy that was already in place was enforced. He asserted that the petitioners' rights to autonomy, bodily integrity, and choice are violated by the dress code.


Anturkar argued that the clothing rule did not apply only to Muslims but to all students as well, and he urged the petitioners to provide evidence that the wearing of the hijab is a mandatory Islamic religious practice. 

He maintained that rather than wearing religious insignia, pupils need to concentrate on their studies. Anturkar further emphasized that when the petitioners applied for admission, they were aware of the dress requirement. He added that the college would also object if someone were to wear additional religious symbols in the future, such as a gada (mace) or bhagwa (saffron) outfit.

The university's counsel questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, noting that unlike in Karnataka, where a government order on the hijab ban was challenged, this case does not involve a State instrumentality

Khan refuted the petitioners' assertion of discord, pointing out that they had been wearing hijabs for two years without causing any strife. He claimed that the ban is against the Puttaswamy ruling on the right to privacy as well as Articles 19 and 21. Khan stressed that the case solely addresses the petitioners' complaints and does not pertain to the general public interest. He contended that there is no justification for the dress rule and that the hijab is also Indian.


Khan contended that the dress code prevents students from Muslim, SC, ST, and OBC communities from having greater access to education by citing several rules and regulations. He emphasized that the ban is against the Puttaswamy ruling as well as Articles 19 and 21.

The petitioners, who are second and third-year B.Sc. and B.Sc. (Computer Science) students at NG Acharya and DK Marathe College of Art, Science, and Commerce, contend that the new clothing code infringes their fundamental rights to privacy, dignity, and freedom of religion. 

The petition claims that the signatories, who are all female students, have been donning the hijab and niqab for some years, both inside and outside of the college. The institution recently published an updated notice titled "Instruction for Student" via a WhatsApp message and its website. The letter enforces a dress code that specifically prohibits the wearing of stoles, caps, badges, niqabs, burkhas, and hijabs.

 The petitioners contend that these orders violate their rights provided by Articles 14, 19, 21, 25, 26, and 29 of the Indian Constitution and are unlawful, arbitrary, and unreasonable. They further claim that these instructions are not backed by any statutory authority.


Case Title – Zainab Abdul Qayyum Choudhary & Ors. v. Chembur Trombay Education Society's NG Acharya and DK Marathe College and Ors.



Tags

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post