Yesterday, the Bombay High Court rejected the petition filed by nine female students challenging the dress code imposed by a Mumbai college. The code prohibited students from wearing items such as hijab, nakab, burkha, stole, cap, etc., on campus.

A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh Patil said in open court, "For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere." A detailed judgment copy is awaited.

Last week, during the hearing, the college argued that the prohibition of certain items aims to prevent the display of religious symbols on campus, except for those recognized under the fundamental right to religion, such as the turban for Sikhs.

Senior advocate Anil Anturkar, representing the college, clarified that the ban applies uniformly to all religious symbols and is not directed specifically at Muslims. He underscored that the college's policy aims to discourage the open exhibition of religious symbols unless they are deemed essential.

Advocate Altaf Khan, representing the petitioners, argued that this case differs from the Karnataka High Court's judgment on the hijab ban in junior colleges. He highlighted that this case involves senior college students who operate under a dress code rather than a uniform policy. Khan contended that the imposition of the dress code via WhatsApp lacked legal authority, contrasting it with the Karnataka case, where a pre-existing uniform policy was enforced. He further argued that the dress code infringes on the petitioners' right to choice and bodily autonomy.

In response to the petitioners' arguments, advocate Anil Anturkar asserted that the dress code applies universally to all students, not exclusively targeting Muslims. He challenged the petitioners to demonstrate that wearing the hijab is an indispensable religious practice in Islam. Anturkar emphasized the importance of students focusing on their studies rather than displaying religious symbols openly. He highlighted that the petitioners were aware of the dress code prior to admission. Additionally, Anturkar mentioned that in the future, the college would similarly object if students were to wear other religious symbols such as a gada (mace) or bhagwa (saffron) attire.

The university's counsel questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, pointing out a distinction from the Karnataka case where a government order on the hijab ban was challenged. In this case, they noted, there is no involvement of a State instrumentality.

In his rebuttal, Advocate Khan highlighted that the petitioners had peacefully worn hijabs for two years without any issues, questioning the sudden assertion of disharmony. He argued that the ban violates Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, as well as the principles laid out in the Puttaswamy judgment regarding the right to privacy.

Khan emphasized that the case primarily addresses the grievances of the petitioners themselves, rather than the broader public interest. He further argued that the hijab is a part of Indian culture and diversity, suggesting that the dress code lacks a coherent rationale.