Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4] Shri Anil Anturkar, the learned Senior Advocate for the 1st respondent-Education Society opposed the aforesaid contentions. At the outset, he submitted that the College had merely issued Instructions with regard to the dress code and that the notice-cum-whatsapp message dated 01/05/2024 had not been issued at the behest of the Management or the College. The Education Society was thus implementing only the Instructions as issued with regard to the dress code. It was submitted that the dress code as prescribed did not in any manner offend the petitioners' rights as claimed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The Instructions were applicable to all students and they were not restricted in their application to students from any particular religion or community as regards their dress. The object behind prescribing the dress code was that religion of the WPL-17737-24 -final.doc students should not be revealed and that discipline in that matter was sought to be ensured. The restrictions imposed were only in that regard. The students taking education in the College ought to focus and concentrate on their studies and it was with that object in mind that the dress code had been prescribed. Moreover, the College had provided a changing room for girl students to ensure that they were comfortable inside the campus. It was then submitted that the College had the necessary authority in law to prescribe a dress code. It could not be interfered with if the same did not result in violating any constitutional rights of any student. The Regulations relied upon by the petitioners did not in any manner prohibit the College from prescribing any dress code. Being a matter of internal administration and discipline, there was no scope for interfering with such exercise. It was then submitted that the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Resham (supra) had held in clear terms that donning of Hijab or Nakab was not an essential religious practice of girl students professing Islam religion so as to preclude such students from wearing the same. Though challenge to the said judgment was WPL-17737-24 -final.doc pending before the Supreme Court, the learned Senior Advocate referred to paragraph 60 of the opinion of Hon'ble Hemant Gupta, J. (as the learned Judge then was) to point out that anything worn by the students under his/her clothes that was not visible was not treated as objectionable. In other words, openly exhibiting once religion through attire was impermissible. It was urged that the petitioners ought to concentrate on their studies rather than finding fault with the dress code. It was pointed out that the Instructions to students were notified on 01/05/2024 and despite that the petitioners took admission in the College thereafter. He also questioned the bonafides of the petitioners by pointing out that even before the writ petition was listed for admission, the petitioners had approached the media and had sought to gain publicity of the present proceedings. It was thus submitted that the challenge raised by the petitioners was without any merit and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 5] We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we have perused the documentary material on record. At the WPL-17737-24 -final.doc outset it may be stated that in view of the categoric stand of the College that it had not issued any whatsapp message on 01/05/2024 and that it would only enforce the Instructions for students in the matter of prescribing the dress code, it is not necessary to refer any further to the said whatsapp message. Since the Petitioners have raised a challenge to the Instructions issued by the College prescribing the dress code for its students, it would be necessary to quote the relevant portion of those Instructions. Clause 2 thereof reads as under:-

"2. You shall follow the dress code of college of formal and decent dress which shall not reveal anyone's religion such as No Burkha, No Nakab, No Hijab, No Cap, No Badge, No Stole etc. Only full or Half shirt and normal trousers for boys and any Indian/western non-revealing dress for girls on the college campus. Changing room available for girls.:
Thus under the aforesaid dress code, the dress of the students is expected to be formal and decent that should not reveal the religion of any student. What is permitted for girl students is any Indian/Western non-revealing dress on the college campus. It further states that a changing room for girls WPL-17737-24 -final.doc has been provided.
6] According to the petitioners, the dress code as prescribed results in they being unable to wear Hijab or Nakab thus affecting their right to choose as well as their right to privacy under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. They contend that in such a manner their right to expression is also affected. The source of power available with the College Administration to prescribe the dress code is not indicated. Alternatively, it is urged that wearing of a Hijab or Nakab is an essential religious practice of the petitioners and they cannot be prevented from donning such apparel. On the other hand, the dress code is supported by the College Administration by urging that it has a right to administer its educational institution and that the dress code is not intended to impose restrictions on students belonging to any particular religion. It is aimed at ensuring discipline in the college campus and to prohibit the students from revealing their religion through their clothes.

11] We may also note that a similar challenge to prescription of dress code by which head scarf and full sleeve shirt prescribed for girl students was the subject matter of challenge before the Kerala High Court in Fatima Thanseem (Minor) and another vs. The State of Kerala and others, (2019) 1 KLT 208. It was held that though there may be a fundamental right for a student to choose a dress of his/her own choice, there was also a fundamental right of establishing, managing and WPL-17737-24 -final.doc administering an educational institution. Between competing rights, an individual could not seek imposition of his/her fundamental right as against the larger right of the educational institution. On this premise, the challenge was turned down. 12] While considering the present challenge it must be noted that what has been done by the College in the form of Instructions for students is to prescribe a dress code at the College. The regulation of such a dress code has to be treated as an exercise towards maintaining discipline at the Institution. This right flows from the recognized fundamental right to establish and administer an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 26 of the Constitution of India. In TMA Pai Foundation and others vs. State of Karnataka and others (2002) 8 SCC 481 it has been held by the Supreme Court that the aforesaid fundamental right to establish and administer an educational institution is subject to the provisions of Article 19(6) and Article 26(a) of the Constitution of India. We do not find as to how the prescription of the dress code by the College offends the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) and WPL-17737-24 -final.doc Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The object behind prescribing the dress code is evident from the Instructions since they state that the intention is that a student's religion ought not to be revealed. It is in larger academic interest of the students as well as for the administration and discipline of the College that this object is achieved. This is for the reason that students are expected to attend the educational institution to receive appropriate instructions for advancement of their academic careers. The insistence for following the dress code is within the college premises and the petitioners' freedom of choice and expression is not otherwise affected. Moreover, a changing room has also been provided for girl students. In our view, the dress code as prescribed cannot be held to violate the petitioners' rights claimed under Article 19(1)