The Allahabad High Court, in a Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla, has held that an individual student cannot insist upon modifying a school’s uniformly prescribed dress code as a matter of right without establishing that the practice is essential to their faith. Dismissing a writ petition filed by a minor Muslim student seeking a direction to allow her to wear a headscarf along with her school uniform, the Court held that so long as a uniform policy is bona fide and non-discriminatory, the choice of dress code lies within the domain of the educational institution.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Sukaina Rizvi, a minor student acting through her mother, completed her High School education at Tagore Public School, Attarsuiya, Prayagraj—a private, unaided institution affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). Upon seeking admission to Class-XI in the same school, she was denied entry on the ground that she insisted on wearing a headscarf inside the classroom, which the school authorities stated was contrary to their prescribed uniform policy.
The petitioner submitted representation letters to the District Magistrate of Prayagraj on May 14, 2026, and June 10, 2026. The District Magistrate called for a report from the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS). Subsequently, the Assistant DIOS recorded the statements of both parties on July 8, 2026.
The petitioner stated that she had been studying in the institution from Class-VI through Class-X while regularly wearing a headscarf without prior objection from the school, relying on her school ID cards and group photographs as evidence. Conversely, the Principal of the school submitted a written response dated July 10, 2026, clarifying that the institution is co-educational with a single uniform policy for all students regardless of community. The Principal stated that permitting one student an exemption to wear a headscarf violates the dress code and affects school administration, especially when other girl students from the same religious community adhere fully to the uniform.
The report of the Assistant DIOS, endorsed by the DIOS on July 13, 2026, concluded that the self-financed CBSE-affiliated school holds the autonomy to determine its internal discipline and dress code, making it unfeasible for a student to pressure the school into granting an exemption.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner belongs to the Muslim Shia community and has worn a headscarf since childhood. It was contended that wearing a headscarf is an essential religious practice protected under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, forming part of her freedom of expression, dignity, and bodily integrity. The petitioner asserted that adding a headscarf of her own choice does not violate the dress code and that the school had no justification to restrict her attire when admitting her to Class-XI.
On behalf of the State respondents, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel argued that the school is a private unaided institution not subject to State regulation regarding its internal administration or uniform prescription. It was submitted that prescribing a uniform is a policy decision aimed at maintaining equality and uniformity among students, and no fundamental right to practice or propagate religion under Article 25 was violated. Counsel representing the CBSE supported the State’s submissions, arguing that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought.
Court’s Analysis and Precedents
Delivering the judgment, Justice J.J. Munir addressed the central legal issue of whether an individual student can enforce an addition to a school’s prescribed dress code.
The Court observed:
“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.”
Addressing the petitioner’s argument regarding her prior use of the headscarf in lower classes, the Bench stated:
“The mere fact that the petitioner might have worn a headscarf earlier when she was reading 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.”
Highlighting the purpose of school dress codes, the Court noted:
“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.”
The Court reviewed several relevant judicial precedents:
- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava v. Ministry of Human Resource Development (2014): A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court rejected a challenge to a school uniform policy involving skirts for girl students, emphasizing that educational authorities are entitled to prescribe appropriate dress codes.
- Fathima Thasneem (Minor) v. State of Kerala (2018): The Kerala High Court held that while individuals have a right to choose their attire, the fundamental right of an institution to manage and administer its affairs takes priority over individual preferences in cases of conflict.
- Fathema Hussain Sayed v. Bharat Education Society (2002): A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that directing a student to conform to a school dress code does not violate Article 25 of the Constitution.
- Resham v. State of Karnataka (2022): A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court ruled that wearing a hijab is not an essential religious practice in Islam, and schools as “qualified public places” have the authority to mandate uniforms to foster egalitarianism and discipline.
- Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka (2023): The Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict regarding the Karnataka decision, which remains pending before a larger bench. The High Court noted that while an interim stay was granted by the Supreme Court in a related matter (Zainab Abdul Qayyum Choudhary v. Chembur Trombay Education Society, 2024), interim orders without detailed reasoning do not constitute binding precedents.
Regarding the constitutional claim under Article 25, the Court observed:
“There is no pleading or authoritative religious text or material placed on record, sufficient by itself to establish, that the practice asserted by the petitioner about the obligation to wear a scarf inside the classroom, is obligatory upon her and the non-observance thereof would alter the fundamental character of her faith.”
The Court added:
“In the event, individual students were permitted to aid or depart, even a little bit from the prescribed uniform on subjective grounds, it would militate against the idea of a uniform. It would transfer the authority to determine School discipline from the institution to individual students.”
Decision
The High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish the factual or legal foundation necessary to prove that wearing a headscarf inside the classroom is an essential religious practice, or that the school’s dress code unlawfully infringed upon her fundamental rights. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Sukaina Rizvi v. State of U.P. and others
Case No.: WRIT – C No. 31172 of 2026
Bench: Justice J.J. Munir, Justice Indrajeet Shukla
Date: August 21, 2026
