Why did Allahabad High Court rule that wearing a headscarf is not an essential religious practice? | Explained

The story so far: The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a plea by a minor student to wear a hijab along with the school uniform, reiterating the unanimous opinion of the High Courts over the years that wearing a headscarf is not an essential part of the Islamic faith for women, in the absence of which, faith will be jeopardised.

The court noted that the petitioner’s assertion that wearing a headscarf is an essential religious practice was a “bare assertion”, as no pleading, authoritative religious text or other material on record established that wearing a scarf inside the classroom was obligatory or that not wearing it would alter the fundamental character of her faith.

What was the case about?

A minor student from a private CBSE school in Prayagraj moved the Allahabad High Court through her mother, asking the court to issue a direction to the school authorities to permit her to wear a headscarf in addition to the uniform prescribed by the school.

The school authorities refused her admission in Class 11 on the ground that she is not welcome with her headscarf. She says that she has studied from Class 6 to Class 10 regularly and wore a scarf on her head ever since she was a student of Class 6.

The school argued that because of the petitioner wearing a scarf and sitting in the class, the dress code of the school is violated. The petitioner claimed that she does not feel comfortable without wearing one and that it is protected as part of the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution

Petitioner claimed that precluding her from wearing a scarf as part of her attire, was violative of her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The school maintained the argument relating to uniformity amongst the students attending their institution and the fact that the school is a private institution and not at all subject to the State’s jurisdiction in the matter of regulating their internal administration, including the prescription of uniform to be worn by students attending their classes.

What was the ruling?

The Court observed that “We are of opinion that so long as the dress code is uniform, bona fide, non discriminatory and intended to maintain discipline and institutional identity, the choice of the prescribed uniform primarily lies within the domain of the School.”

Court noted that the mere fact that the petitioner might have worn a headscarf earlier when she was studying in the lower classes without objection from the School, cannot by itself create a vested or enforceable right to compel the School to alter or relax their uniform policy for students seeking admission to Class-XI.

It is also open to the School to change the uniform policy and alter the dress code, and students have to adhere to it. The court noted that “A rule requiring students to wear a uniform promotes a religion-neutral atmosphere as it applies to students professing different faiths without singling out any one on the basis of his/ her faith.”

That being said, the court ruled that “the assertion in the writ petition that wearing a headscarf is an essential religious practice is a bare assertion. 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”

Why such a conclusion?

The court relied on multiple precedents from the High Courts. The Court looked into the case of Fathima Thasneem (Minor) and another v. State of Kerala and others, 2018 by the Kerala High Court.

The petitioners in this case were Muslim students who challenged their school’s uniform policy prohibiting the wearing of the hijab. The school was a private Christian educational institution. The High Court held that it was for the institution to decide its dress code.

Answering whether wearing hijab/head-scarf is a part of ‘essential religious practice’ in Islamic faith protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court in Resham v. State of Karnataka, (2022) observed that “What are essential parts of religion or religious belief or matters of religion and religious practice is essentially a question of fact to be considered in the context in which the question has arisen and the evidence factual or legislative or historic presented in that context is required to be considered and a decision reached” In that case, the court ruled that The object of prescribing uniform will be defeated if there is non-uniformity in the matter of uniforms.

Resham case came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Aishat Shifa (Hijab Case-2 J.) v. State of Karnataka and others, (2023). The two Hon’ble Judges, comprising the Bench, delivered a split verdict.

As there is no authoritative pronouncement yet by the Supreme Court, finally settling the issue, the Karnataka judgment, along with similar High Court decisions were treated as a “persuasive authority of great value” by the Allahabad HC.

As a result of these observations, the court dismissed the writ petition.