In a significant legal intervention, the Supreme Court of India has sharply criticized NG Acharya & DK Marathe College in Mumbai for its ban on burqas, hijabs, niqabs, caps, stoles, and badges. The court’s comments came during a hearing on a petition filed by nine female students challenging the college’s restrictive dress code.
The bench, consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and PV Sanjay Kumar, expressed deep concern over the college’s decision to ban traditional attire, questioning how such measures could be considered empowering for women. “How are you empowering women by telling them what to wear?” Justice Kumar remarked, emphasizing that personal attire choices should be left to the students themselves.
The court highlighted the irony of such bans being implemented so long after India’s independence, labeling it “unfortunate” that such issues are still prevalent. The judges partially stayed the college’s order, allowing students to wear hijabs, caps, and badges, while hoping that this concession would not be misused.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the college, argued that permitting hijabs and burqas could lead to political expressions, such as students wearing saffron shawls. Divan also mentioned that arrangements were made for students to remove their traditional attire in changing rooms before entering the campus.
The court responded to these arguments by questioning the necessity and fairness of the ban. Justice Kumar pointed out that enforcing such dress codes disregards the personal and cultural backgrounds of the students. He also criticized the college for trying to segregate students based on their attire, questioning whether it would also ban other cultural symbols like bindis or tilaks.
The college’s rationale for the ban included a concern about maintaining neutrality and preventing religious disclosures. However, the court countered that religious identity could still be inferred from names, and such restrictive rules were unjustified.
The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores a broader debate about the balance between institutional regulations and individual freedoms. By questioning the college’s authority to impose such bans, the court has reaffirmed the importance of respecting personal choices and cultural expressions within educational institutions.
Sources By Agencies
