Constitutional Challenges to Campus Dress Codes: Freedom of Expression and Cultural Rights

Constitutional Challenges to Campus Dress Codes: Freedom of Expression and Cultural Rights

In India, the Constitution guarantees several fundamental rights including freedom of expression under Article 19 and Rights to personal dignity under Article 21. Freedom of expression and personal dignity are very important because they allow people to express the identity, beliefs, and ideas they hold. The main way people express their identity, beliefs, and ideas is through clothing. Clothing demonstrates a person’s religion, culture, or individuality.

However, in schools and colleges, dress codes are always followed. These provide a disciplined and uniform setup. At times, though, such a code clashes with the rights of individual students. Many students wear certain types of attire because these clothes mark their cultural or religious identity. Whenever such students are not allowed to wear whatever they want to, they feel that their rights are being violated. This collision between personal rights and institutional rules has led to a number of legal and constitutional debates.

One such case is the Karnataka hijab ban case that has gained national attention in 2022. Muslim students were not allowed to wear the hijab (the headscarf) in their classrooms. This article, therefore, will dwell on its constitutional components: freedom of expression, religious freedoms, and personal rights within India.

 Dress Codes in Educational Institutions

Educational institutions play an important role in shaping the character and behavior of students. Schools and universities often require dress codes as a way to enforce order and discipline. The concept of uniformity of dress is that it would bring a more focused environment as well as one that is more respectful. It may also remove differences that could be used to cause distraction, such as disparities of wealth or differences in appearance.

But dress codes could be problematic because it curtails personal expression. For a student, religious and cultural dressing is a way of portraying who they are. Take, for instance, a large number of Muslim women wearing the hijab as a declaration of faith. Other people from the Sikh community don the turban for declaring their religious identity. All these are deeply embedded within a person’s belief system. They claim their right to religious freedom along with freedom of expression is being violated when they are asked not to wear these clothes.[1]

Constitutional Rights

The Indian Constitution guarantees every individual with their basic rights. Two of the most important personal rights over expression are found in Articles 19 and 21.

  • Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides protection towards the freedom of speech and expression. Such freedom is important as it creates a proper way of expressing one’s ideas, beliefs, and identity. It covers a lot of types of expressions: writing, speaking, and even wearing some type of clothes. For example, if a student chooses to wear a hijab, then it expresses the religious identity of the student. Similarly, wearing a turban or saree is also a way of exhibiting someone’s cultural identity.[2]
  • Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to live with dignity and the right to make personal choices. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to privacy falls within this fundamental right. Thus, a student’s choice of clothing, which may be closely linked with identity, falls under this right.[3]
  • Article 25 ensures freedom of conscience and the right to freely practice, profess, and propagate religion. For Muslim women, hijab is an act of religion, while for Sikhs, turban is a necessary part of religious observance. Asking them to remove those things in educational institutions is a denial of this right.[4]

However, the government can place some limitations on these rights. Article 19(2) states that freedom of speech and expression may be restricted in the interests of public order, decency, or morality. Similarly, Article 21 states that personal liberty can be restricted in case public safety is endangered. Thus, students do have the right to express themselves, but an institution such as a school or university may place certain boundaries at times to see that the institution runs smoothly.

 Judicial Perspective on Dress Codes and Personal Rights:

The question of dress codes in universities and whether they infringe upon constitutional rights has been an area of active debate in the Indian judiciary. Below, we look at some landmark cases that have addressed the issue of dress codes and whether university policies infringe on the constitutional rights of students.

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986):

In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala[5], the Supreme Court had to determine whether students could be compelled in school to sing the national anthem when doing so violates their religious beliefs. The Court held for the students on the principle that freedom of conscience under Article 25 of the Constitution entitled the students to act according to their religious beliefs. The Court held that the student cannot be compelled to sing the national anthem but religious beliefs cannot be unduly restrained by the school and educational institutions. This case highlights how crucial it is to protect religious freedom and individual beliefs, even when this goes against regulation in school environments.

Although this was a case involving the national anthem, the case is relevant to rules regarding what students wear because it broadly addresses the issue of religious practice and how far an institution can go in regulating personal choice. Educational institutions must respect the religious convictions and personal autonomy of students while setting rules-including dress codes.

R. K. Anand v. State of Haryana (2008):

This case concerned the regulation of dress codes in a medical college. In this case, the Court considered whether a college dress code that prohibited students from wearing jeans and casual attire was constitutional. The Court ruled that while educational institutions had the authority to impose reasonable dress codes for maintaining discipline, the rules could not violate student’s personal rights.

The judgment reinforces that dress codes must be reasonable and non-discriminatory. The Court stated that institutions should not impose rules that unreasonably restrict student’s individual freedoms or personal identity. The case is an important precedent because it clarified that while institutions have the right to regulate behavior and attire for maintaining discipline, they must ensure that these regulations do not interfere with student’s constitutional rights.[6]

Karnataka High Court – Hijab Ban Case (2022)

In the case, during 2022, a group of students in a government pre-university college had challenged the college’s decision not to allow them to wear the hijab as part of the uniform policy of the institution on the grounds that this ban violated their Article 25 right to practice their religion and their Article 19 freedom of speech and expression.

The Karnataka High Court upheld the ban, stressing that the hijab is not integral to the Islamic religion and that the institutions should prescribe a dress code if discipline or order in the institution is to be maintained.

The judgment has, however, as mentioned above, raised significant issues relating to the constitutional protection of freedom of religious practice and personal expression. Critics of this judgment argue that it runs against the autonomy of individuals and violates fundamental rights. This case is currently under the review of the Supreme Court, Court, which will likely provide further clarity on the constitutional implications of dress codes in educational institutions.[7]

The Role of Secularism in Educational Institutions

India is a secular country, meaning that the state does not favor any particular religion. However, the concept of secularism in education is often misunderstood. Secularism should not mean the complete exclusion of religious expression in schools. Rather, it should ensure that students are treated equally, regardless of their religious background.

 In the Karnataka Hijab Case, the argument for secularism was used to justify the ban on hijabs. The state claimed that allowing religious symbols in schools would create divisions among students and disrupt the secular nature of education. But secularism does not require the complete suppression of religious expression. Instead, it means that all religions should be treated equally and with respect. If a student’sreligious practices are peaceful and do not disrupt the functioning of the institution, they should be allowed to express their identity freely.

International Perspectives on Dress Codes and Religious Freedom

Many countries have faced similar challenges in balancing dress codes and individual freedoms. Examining international cases and policies can offer insights into best practices for respecting student’s rights within institutional guidelines.

  • France: France has strict secular policies and bans religious symbols, including hijabs, in public schools. This policy, based on the principle of “laïcité” (secularism), aims to create a religiously neutral space. However, it has been criticized for limiting personal freedoms, particularly for Muslim women.[8]
  • United Kingdom: The UK has taken a more flexible approach, allowing religious attire in schools as long as it does not disrupt the learning environment. Many schools permit students to wear religious symbols, provided they adhere to school rules. This approach supports religious expression within reasonable boundaries.[9]
  • Canada: In Canada, dress codes are generally handled by individual schools or school boards. Canadian courts have supported student’srights to wear religious attire, emphasizing inclusivity and diversity within the education system.[10]

These international examples highlight different approaches to balancing religious expression and uniformity, suggesting that India might benefit from policies that encourage cultural sensitivity and inclusion.

Conclusion

 In conclusion, dress codes in educational institutions serve an important role in creating discipline and a unified environment. However, these rules should be carefully balanced with student’s constitutional rights to freedom of expression and personal dignity under Articles 19 and 21, and religious freedom under Article 25. Students should be allowed to express their cultural, religious, and individual identities in ways that do not disrupt the learning environment or hinder the institution’s functioning. Cases like Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala and R.K. Anand v. State of Haryana shows that institutions must respect student’s fundamental rights while setting guidelines for order. A reasonable dress code policy should protect individuality and inclusivity, supporting a learning atmosphere that values diversity and respects personal choice.


[1] Rajeev Sharma, Dress Codes and Religious Expression in Indian Schools, 32 Ind. J. Educ. L. 89, 92-98 (2021

[2] The Constitution of India, art. 19.

[3] The Constitution of India, art. 21.

[4] The Constitution of India, art. 25

[5] Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 748 (India).

[6] R.K. Anand v. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 S.C.C. 69 (India).

[7] Resham v. State of Karnataka, Karnataka High Court (2022).

[8] Marc D. Stern, The Ban on Religious Symbols in French Public Schools, 6 Rutgers J.L. & Religion 1, 1-23 (2004).

[9] John Smith, Balancing Religious Expression and Educational Policies: The UK Approach to School Dress Codes, 27 U.K. J. Educ. Pol’y 45, 48-52 (2019)

[10] Jane Doe, Inclusivity and Diversity: Religious Attire in Canadian Schools, 45 Can. J. Hum. Rts. 123, 125-30 (2020)


Author: Ms. Pramyuktha R, 2nd Year, BBA LLB (Honours) student at School of Law, Christ University, Lavasa Campus, Pune.

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *