Written by Suresh Bahadur Singh, Advocate, Allahabad High Court (Former Additional Government Advocate)
If every student starts making additions or alterations to the uniform according to personal faith, fashion or family traditions, the very meaning of the word ‘uniform’ would be lost. Not wearing the hijab during the six-hour school day neither weakens the fundamental teachings of Islam nor poses any threat to one’s inner faith. Such a demand arises from narrow thinking and traditional family practices, which cannot be accorded the status of a legal right. Several courts in the past have held that wearing the hijab is not an essential religious practice in Islam and that the rule requiring a school uniform is a reasonable and rational restriction that does not violate the right to religious freedom. In Fathima Thasneem v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court had observed that a student’s right to choose her dress and an institution’s right to administer itself are both fundamental, but when the two come into conflict, the larger interests of the institution should be given priority. The entire concept of a uniform is founded on equality. Every child sitting in a classroom, regardless of religion, caste or economic background, should look the same that is the fundamental spirit of the uniform system. This principle does not stem from an anti-religious agenda, but from the understanding that a school is a place where children learn that certain boundaries in collective life are the same for everyone. This equality, in turn, forms the foundation of democratic citizenship. In the long run, this would lead to disorder in any educational institution. If emphasis is placed on clothing rather than faith, it amounts to underestimating the depth of religion. The Allahabad High Court’s judgment seeks to dispel the confusion that is often created between religious symbols and the essence of religion. This neither weakens her faith nor erases her religious identity. The Allahabad High Court’s judgment is not against any community; rather, it stands for the clarity that teaches every child that the school’s collective identity and one’s personal faith at home can both remain secure in their respective spaces.
The court rightly underlined that if every student begins altering the uniform according to personal preference, the responsibility of maintaining discipline would shift from the institution to individual students. A girl student can wear the prescribed uniform and pursue her education at school and, upon returning home or outside school, wear a scarf according to her choice.
