Lucknow/ Bhopal, August 25, 2026

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a Muslim student’s plea seeking permission to wear a hijab along with her prescribed school uniform. The court reportedly held that a student cannot demand changes to a uniform policy that is genuine, non-discriminatory and applicable to all. A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla delivered the ruling in Sukaina Rizvi versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. The order was passed on August 21.

The petitioner is a minor student of Tagore Public School at Attarsuiya in Prayagraj. It is a private, unaided and co-educational school affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education.

The student had completed Class 10 and wanted admission to Class 11 in the same school. She approached the High Court through her mother after a dispute arose over her decision to wear a headscarf with the uniform.

The student claimed that she had studied at the school from Class 6 to Class 10. She also said that she had regularly worn a headscarf during those years and that the school had not objected earlier. Her counsel argued that wearing the headscarf was an essential practice of her faith. Preventing her from wearing it would violate her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the petition said.

The school opposed the plea. It told the court that the same dress code applied to all students, irrespective of their religion. The school also said that other Muslim girls were attending classes in the prescribed uniform. Giving one student an exemption could affect discipline and the school’s administrative system.

The Bench rejected the argument that the school’s failure to object in earlier classes had created a permanent right in favour of the student. The earlier position could have resulted from inaction, hesitation, courtesy or the uniform rules not being strictly enforced, it said. This did not prevent the school from enforcing its dress code when the student sought admission to Class 11.

The court also noted that the school had not changed its uniform. The student was seeking permission to add another piece of clothing to the existing dress code.

The Bench held that the choice of uniform primarily falls within the school’s domain. However, the policy must be uniform, bona fide, non-discriminatory and aimed at maintaining discipline and institutional identity.

A common uniform, the court observed, promotes equality among students. It also reduces visible differences inside the classroom and helps educational institutions maintain a religion-neutral environment. The court further held that an individual choice cannot be allowed to weaken the basic idea of a uniform. Such an exception would shift the power to decide the dress code from the institution to individual students.

On the religious claim, the Bench said that the petitioner had not produced enough factual or legal material to establish that wearing a headscarf was an essential religious practice in Islam. The court described the claim as a “bare assertion”. It said no authoritative religious material had been placed before it to show that wearing a headscarf inside the classroom was obligatory or that its absence would alter the basic character of the student’s faith. LiveLaw’s account of the judgment

The Bench considered earlier rulings of the Kerala, Bombay and Karnataka High Courts. It reportedly gave particular weight to the Karnataka High Court’s 2022 Full Bench verdict, which held that wearing the hijab was not an essential religious practice in Islam. The Allahabad High Court called the Karnataka ruling a persuasive authority of “great value” and said it found no reason to take a different view.

Some Muslim clerics have criticised the latest ruling and maintained that the hijab is an integral part of Islam. They have argued that schools should find a way to accommodate it within their uniform rules.

The present judgment, however, is confined to the facts of the Prayagraj student’s case and the policy of her private school. While dismissing her petition, the court upheld the institution’s authority to enforce a common and non-discriminatory uniform.