NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday decided to hear the appeal filed by a group of college students, challenging the Bombay High Court's order upholding the ban imposed on a private college in Mumbai on wearing of hijab, nakab, burkha, cap, etc.
The lawyer for the petitioner on Thursday pleaded to the top court, led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, to hear the case today as the NEET PG exams were scheduled to start today.
Upon hearing this, the CJI asked him, were you being stopped from appearing in the exam?,” To this, the counsel said that if students do not adhere to the uniform, then please hear it today.
The bench also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, besides the CJI, assured the petitioners that it would hear the matter on August 09.
Bombay HC say that dress code is within the college premises only
Primarily, the authorities of the NG Acharya & DK Marathe College, in Mumbai, had prescribed a dress code prohibiting their students from wearing hijab, nakab, burkha, stole, cap, etc., on campus.
Against this order, nine female students of the college filed a petition before the Bombay High Court, challenging this dress code.
Hearing these pleas, the HC's two-judge bench, led by Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S Patil, on its order on June 26, refused to entertain these by saying that the insistence for following the dress code is within the college premises and the petitioners' freedom of choice and expression is not otherwise affected.
Subsequently, these students moved to the top court by filing an appeal challenging the HC's order.
The petitioners challenged the dress code on the grounds that restriction on hijab, nakab, burka etc. in the campus violates their fundamental rights. "Under the dress code, the dress of the students is expected to be formal and decent and should not reveal the religion of any student," the plea said.
Pointing out that the college was wrong in its order in trying to make a dress code, the plea of the students said that the dress code was arbitrary and discriminatory. "It infringes upon their right to choose their attire, their right to privacy, and right to expression under Article 19(1) (a) and their right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution."
