‘Would Militate Against Idea of Uniform’: Allahabad High Court Rejects Muslim Student’s Hijab Plea
Allahabad High Court holds a private unaided school can enforce a bona fide, non-discriminatory uniform policy after the student failed to establish wearing a hijab as an essential religious practice under Article 25.
Allahabad High Court backs school uniform policy in hijab case.
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a plea by a Muslim student seeking admission to Class XI at her school while wearing a hijab (a headscarf), holding that a private unaided school can enforce its uniform policy if it is uniform, bona fide and non-discriminatory.
The bench of Justices J.J. Munir and Indrajeet Shukla said the student had not placed sufficient material to establish that wearing a headscarf was an essential religious practice, and that her earlier permission to wear one did not give her an enforceable right to continue doing so.
Sukaina Rizvi, a minor student of Tagore Public School in Attarsuiya, Prayagraj, had studied at the school from Class VI to Class X and sought admission to Class XI. She told the court that she belongs to the Muslim Shia community and had been wearing a headscarf since childhood. She said she was not seeking to abandon the prescribed school uniform, but wanted to wear the headscarf along with it because she had been accustomed to wearing it and did not feel comfortable without it.
Rizvi claimed that the school had allowed her to wear the headscarf throughout Classes VI to X and had never objected to it. She relied on her school identity cards and group photographs from Classes VIII, IX and X, which showed her in the prescribed uniform with a headscarf. According to her plea, the school refused her admission to Class XI when she sought to continue wearing it.
Why did the school refuse admission to Class XI?
The school told the authorities that it had a common dress code for all students and that allowing Rizvi to wear a headscarf would amount to giving her an exemption from the uniform. The principal said the school was a co-educational institution attended by children from different communities and that the same dress code applied to everyone.
The school also pointed out that other girl students from the same religious community followed the prescribed uniform. Allowing one student to depart from it, the principal said, could affect the school's administration and discipline. The school therefore said admission could not be granted while Rizvi insisted on wearing the headscarf.
Rizvi, however, argued that wearing the headscarf was part of her religious faith and that preventing her from doing so violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. She also invoked her right to dignity and bodily integrity and said the headscarf was a decent form of attire.
What did the Allahabad High Court say about hijab and Islamic faith?
Court said the petitioner's claim that wearing the headscarf was an essential religious practice was not supported by sufficient pleadings or material.
“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,” court said.
Also Read| Supreme Court delivers split verdict in hijab issue
Court said a claim under Article 25 could not be accepted merely on assertion. It noted that Rizvi had pleaded that she had worn the scarf since childhood and since joining the school in Class VI, but had not laid the factual and legal foundation necessary to establish that wearing it was an essential religious practice.
Court further said that no material had been placed before it to establish that “the donning of a headscarf is an essential part of religion for a Muslim female, forsaking which, would oust the girl or woman concerned from the faith that she professes and practices".
Did wearing the hijab earlier give the student a right to continue wearing it?
Court said it did not. It held that the fact that Rizvi had previously worn a headscarf without objection could not create a vested or enforceable right requiring the school to relax its uniform policy.
The judges said the school may earlier have allowed it because of “lethargy, inaction, lack of will, non-enforcement of the uniform policy”, courtesy or hesitation. But this did not prevent the school from enforcing its dress code later.
Court also emphasised that a uniform serves purposes beyond clothing. It said it “instills discipline, equality amongst children, projects institutional identity and eschews distinctions within the classroom” and helps create a “religion neutral atmosphere” because the same rules apply to students of different faiths.
Court noted that education is a public function even when entrusted to private institutions, meaning the school could be subject to the court's writ jurisdiction. But it said the school was not attempting to curtail Rizvi's freedom of faith; it was requiring her to conform to institutional discipline, of which the uniform was an essential part.
Court also considered earlier decisions concerning hijab and school uniforms, including the Karnataka High Court's judgment in the hijab case. It noted that the Supreme Court's 2023 split verdict on that judgment had not finally settled the issue. The court said the reasoning of other high courts remained persuasive.
It ultimately held that permitting individual students to depart from the prescribed uniform on subjective grounds would “militate against the idea of a uniform” and could transfer the authority to determine school discipline from the institution to individual students.
The writ petition was dismissed, with court directing that there would be no order as to costs.
Case title: Sukaina Rizvi v. State of U.P. and others
Order date: August 21, 2026
Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla