{"id":121002,"date":"2026-08-26T11:26:34","date_gmt":"2026-08-26T05:56:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=121002"},"modified":"2026-08-26T11:26:34","modified_gmt":"2026-08-26T05:56:34","slug":"hijab-in-schools","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/hijab-in-schools\/","title":{"rendered":"Hijab in Schools: Why the Allahabad High Court Rejected the Plea"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><b>Hijab in Schools Latest News<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Allahabad High Court has rejected a Muslim student&#8217;s challenge to her school&#8217;s dress code, ruling that years of attending classes in a headscarf did not entitle her to continue doing so. In its, the Division Bench held that her claim of religious necessity rested on a &#8220;bare assertion&#8221; unsupported by evidence.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The ruling is the latest in a series of judgments turning on the &#8220;<\/span><b>essential religious practice<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&#8221; test under <\/span><b><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/article-25\/\" target=\"_blank\">Article 25<\/a> of the Constitution<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2014 a question that has travelled through multiple High Courts and remains pending before a larger Supreme Court bench.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Background of the Case<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The petitioner, a minor student at a school in Prayagraj, had studied there from Class VI to Class X wearing a headscarf, with photographs and ID cards on record showing her in uniform with the scarf throughout those years.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">She argued that since she had worn it without objection for years, she should be permitted to continue.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The school countered that the scarf violated its dress code and that other students from her own religious community complied without it, adding that permitting the scarf would affect &#8220;the administration of the School.&#8221;\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The student, who belongs to the Muslim Shia community, argued that the headscarf is integral to her faith.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">She contended that since the school permits &#8220;formal and decent&#8221; attire, singling out the scarf effectively treated it as improper, and that the refusal violated her right to free expression under <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/article-19-of-indian-constitution\/\" target=\"_blank\">Article 19(1)(a)<\/a> <\/strong>and affected her dignity and bodily integrity.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>What the Court Held<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>On prior tolerance:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The bench held that years of wearing the headscarf without objection created no enforceable right going forward.\u00a0<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The school&#8217;s earlier silence could be attributed to &#8220;lethargy, inaction, lack of will, non-enforcement of the uniform policy, even courtesy or hesitation&#8221; \u2014 none of which barred the school from enforcing its dress code later.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>On institutional authority:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The bench held that so long as a dress code is &#8220;uniform, bona fide, non-discriminatory and intended to maintain discipline and institutional identity,&#8221; the choice of uniform lies primarily with the school.\u00a0<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Permitting even minor departures, the court said, &#8220;would militate against the idea of a uniform&#8221; and would shift disciplinary authority from the institution to individual students.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>On the religious claim:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The court found the petitioner&#8217;s case to be a &#8220;bare assertion,&#8221; noting the absence of any authoritative religious text, expert material, or other evidence establishing that wearing a headscarf inside the classroom was religiously obligatory, or that omitting it would alter the fundamental character of her faith.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Judicial Precedents Underpinning the Ruling<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Allahabad High Court situated its decision within a consistent judicial trend <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">treating school uniforms as matters for educational institutions to decide<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, while requiring students claiming religious protection to prove the practice is obligatory to their faith.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Karnataka High Court (2022):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> The Court relied heavily on the Karnataka High Court&#8217;s Full Bench judgment, which held that wearing a hijab <\/span><b>does not<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> constitute an <\/span><b>essential religious<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> practice in Islam, and that uniform requirements do not violate Articles 14, 15, 19, or 21.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Supreme Court (2022) \u2014 Split Verdict:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> This Karnataka ruling reached the Supreme Court in October 2022, where a two-judge bench delivered a split verdict:<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><b>Justice Hemant Gupta<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> held that a student cannot claim the right to wear a headscarf in a secular school as a matter of right, since students must follow prescribed uniforms in state-run institutions.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><b>Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia (dissenting)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> approached the issue through the lens of choice and access to education, holding that a girl&#8217;s right to wear the hijab does not stop at the school gate, and that fundamental rights do not become &#8220;derivative rights&#8221; inside a classroom.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Owing to this split, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger bench \u2014 a decision still pending.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Kerala High Court (2018):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Went further, ruling that permitting a headscarf is &#8220;purely within the domain of the institution,&#8221; and that courts cannot even direct an institution to consider such a request.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Since the Supreme Court has yet to deliver an authoritative ruling, the Allahabad High Court treated the Karnataka judgment and similar High Court decisions as &#8220;persuasive authority of great value.&#8221;<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Conclusion<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Allahabad High Court&#8217;s ruling reinforces a consistent judicial pattern: absent Supreme Court clarity, High Courts have generally upheld institutional authority over dress codes and required strict evidentiary proof for claims of religious obligation under Article 25.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">With the issue still pending before a larger Supreme Court bench following the 2022 split verdict, the <\/span><b>essential religious practice test for the hijab remains constitutionally unsettled<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2014 leaving the tension between individual religious expression and institutional discipline unresolved at the highest judicial level.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Source:<\/b> <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/explained\/explained-law\/why-allahabad-hc-rejected-schoolgirls-plea-hijab-10849181\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">IE<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Hijab in Schools remains a constitutional debate. Learn why the Allahabad High Court upheld the dress code and examined the essential religious practice test.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":121018,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[9786,60,22,59],"class_list":["post-121002","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","tag-hijab-in-schools","tag-mains-articles","tag-upsc-current-affairs","tag-upsc-mains-current-affairs-tag","no-featured-image-padding"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121002","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=121002"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121002\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":121025,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121002\/revisions\/121025"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/121018"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}