A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar challenged the college’s ban on hijab, questioning why the prohibition had not been applied to other religious markers like tilak and bindi.
“Female students should have the freedom to choose their attire, and the college cannot impose restrictions on them,” the bench remarked to the college administration, which is at the centre of a new controversy over a dress code for Muslim students. “Unfortunately, you’ve suddenly realised the presence of many religions in the country,” they added.
Justice Kumar further questioned, “Can you forbid someone from wearing a tilak? Is this not included in your guidelines?” according to Live Law.
The Supreme Court was reviewing a petition that contested a Bombay High Court ruling from June, which declined to overturn the college’s decision to enforce the ban.
The background of the controversy
The challenge was brought by nine female students in their second and third years of a science degree program, arguing that the college’s directive infringed on their fundamental rights, including the right to practice their religion, the right to privacy, and the right to personal choice.
The controversy began on May 1 when the Chembur Trombay Education Society’s NG Acharya & DK Marathe College issued a notice in its official WhatsApp group, which included both faculty members and students. The notice detailed a dress code that prohibited the wearing of hijab, niqab, burqa, caps, badges, and stoles on campus. The petitioners argued that this directive was issued without any legal authority, rendering it “invalid, null, and void.”
The students first approached the college management and the principal, requesting that the restrictions on hijab, niqab, and burqa be lifted, citing their rights to choice, dignity, and privacy in the classroom. When their requests were disregarded, they escalated the issue to the chancellor and vice-chancellor of Mumbai University, as well as the University Grants Commission, seeking intervention to ensure that education was provided without discrimination. After receiving no response, the students filed a petition with the Bombay High Court.
During the high court hearing, the petitioners’ advocate, Altaf Khan, referenced Quranic verses to argue that wearing a hijab is an essential part of Islam. The petition described the college’s action as “arbitrary, unreasonable, legally flawed, and perverse.”
The college management defended the ban, claiming it was a measure to enforce a uniform dress code and maintain discipline, with no intention of discriminating against the Muslim community. Senior counsel Anil Anturkar, representing the college, asserted that the dress code applied to students of all religions and castes.
