The Supreme Court, in the case of Zainab Abdul Qayyum Choudhary and Others v. Chembur Tromboy Education Society, NG Acharya and DK Marathe, College of Art, Science and Commerce and Others, criticized a Mumbai college on Friday for prohibiting students from donning burqas, hijabs, or niqabs on campus and partially stayed the notice the institution had issued in this regard.
The hijab and cap bans were suspended while notice was given on the petition contesting the prohibition by a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and PV Sanjay Kumar.
“We issue notice in the week commencing November 18. We partly stay clause 2 of the impugned circular to the extent that it directs that no hijab, no cap, no badges will be allowed. We hope and trust this interim order is not misused by anybody,” the Court said in the order.
The Court questioned the decision’s reasoning during the hearing and declared that the kids need to be free to dress however they like.
The Court declared that the college’s judgment would be counterproductive to women’s emancipation.
“How are you empowering women by telling them what to wear? The less said, the better. Where is the choice for the woman? You have suddenly woken up to the fact that they are wearing it. It is unfortunate that these all being said after so many years of independence and you say religion is there in this country,” Justice Kumar said.
Regarding the college’s position that it does not wish for students’ religious affiliations to be made public, Justice Khanna stated,
“Religion is there in the names also. Do not impose such rules.”
A case contesting the Bombay High Court ruling upholding a Chembur (Mumbai) college’s ban on students wearing burqas, hijabs, or niqabs on campus was being heard by the Bench.
Attorney Hamza Lakdawala authored the petition, which advocate Abiha Zaidi filed on their behalf.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves made a submission on behalf of the petitioner, claiming that pupils were not being given attendance records and had been prevented from attending classes.
Gonsalves stated, “They wore the hijab for four years.”
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan responded on behalf of the college, stating that just three of the 441 female Muslim students enrolled there desire to wear the hijab.
She defended the restriction by claiming that a girl wearing a niqab, for example, creates a barrier.
The Court, however, was unimpressed with the submission and questioned why the judgment had been made without prior notice.
“You may be correct. The background they belong to..family members may say wear it and go and they have to wear. But let all study together,” it added.
Justice Kumar added that colleges should no longer be making these kinds of rules. The Court further inquired as to whether the college would not admit anyone wearing bindi or tilak.
“That is not part of the instruction at all. You have not said that,” the Bench told the counsel representing the college.
Divan said that girls will start showing up with damaged jeans and was against the stay. The niqab, she continued, prevented people from interacting.
She acquiesced, saying, “Do not take away my (college’s) autonomy.”
Justice Khanna stated at this point that
“You cannot make it like this. Solution to a lot of this is proper good education. I know a burqa cannot be allowed as you cannot sit in the class like this.”
Nine students from NG Acharya and DK Marathe College in Chembur filed a High Court petition challenging a notice from the college directing them to adhere to a revised dress code starting in June. This is how the matter came to be in the current case.
But the High Court rejected the request, noting that the order was meant to keep students’ religious beliefs private so they could concentrate only on their studies.
The students went to the highest court, angry.
The appellants contended before the supreme court that the college, which was supported by the State of Maharashtra and was associated with Mumbai University, lacked the legal jurisdiction to issue directives imposing such limitations.
Furthermore, it has been claimed that the ban violates Article 15 of the Constitution because it makes the school unwelcoming to female pupils, especially those who identify as Muslims.
It has been argued that wearing a hijab, nakab, or burqa does not interfere with instruction, undermine discipline, or provide wearers unfair benefits.
