Loading…
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed Sukaina Rizvi v. State of U.P. on 21 August 2026, refusing to let a student wear a headscarf with her prescribed school uniform.
The Bench of Justice J. J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held that wearing a headscarf is not an essential religious practice in Islam.
The petitioner, a minor at Tagore Public School, Attarsuiya, Prayagraj, had worn a headscarf from Class VI to Class X but was denied admission to Class XI on dress-code grounds.
The Court held that a private unaided school may enforce a uniform policy that is uniform, bona fide and non-discriminatory.
It also held that the school's earlier leniency created no vested or enforceable right to continue wearing the headscarf.
Article 25 protects the freedom to profess, practise and propagate religion, but Indian courts have not extended that protection to everything done in a religion's name. Under the essential religious practices test, traced to the Supreme Court's decision in the Shirur Mutt case of 1954, a practice is protected only if it is integral and essential to the faith - that is, if removing it would alter the fundamental character of the religion. The burden lies on the claimant, and it is discharged with authoritative religious texts and material, not assertion. That is precisely where the petition in Sukaina Rizvi failed. The doctrine is itself contested: it requires secular judges to decide questions of theology, and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia said in 2022 that the test was not even necessary to decide the Karnataka hijab dispute.
Simple Analogy: The test asks not whether a believer values a practice, but whether the religion would still be recognisably itself without it - like asking whether a component is load-bearing or decorative before allowing it to be removed.
Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion - expressly subject to public order, morality and health, and to the other Fundamental Rights in Part III.
Complete the religious-freedom group: freedom to manage religious affairs, freedom from taxation for promotion of a religion, and freedom from religious instruction in wholly State-funded institutions.
Dress has also been argued as expression and as personal autonomy; courts weigh these against an institution's power to prescribe a uniform.
Gives minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions - the counterpart to institutional autonomy asserted by private unaided schools generally.
Shirur Mutt: the Supreme Court frames the essential religious practices test for claims under Article 25.
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala: expulsion of Jehovah's Witness children for not singing the national anthem is set aside - the counter-example in which a religious claim prevailed.
Fathema Hussain Sayed v. Bharat Education Society: the Bombay High Court upholds a standard uniform policy as consistent with Article 25.
Fathima Thasneem v. State of Kerala: the Kerala High Court holds the collective right of an institution to enforce a uniform overrides individual student preference.
Resham v. State of Karnataka: the Karnataka High Court holds the hijab is not an essential religious practice and upholds a dress code.
Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka: the Supreme Court delivers a split verdict - Justice Hemant Gupta upholding the ban, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia setting the High Court judgment aside - and the matter is referred to a larger Bench.
Sukaina Rizvi v. State of U.P.: the Allahabad High Court dismisses the plea, holding a private unaided school may enforce a bona fide, non-discriminatory uniform policy.
Because Aishat Shifa produced no majority, the Karnataka High Court's reasoning in Resham survives as persuasive authority and High Courts continue to follow it while the reference to a larger Bench remains pending.
Administrative autonomy allows such a school to set and enforce a dress code, provided it applies to all students fairly and without discrimination - fairness of application, not the existence of the code, is the reviewable question.
The petition was moved through the student's mother, since a minor litigates through a guardian; the Court weighed family faith against the school's duty to maintain a shared classroom space.
The stated purpose of a uniform - suppressing visible socioeconomic and religious distinction - is an equality argument, which is why Article 14 reasoning appears alongside Article 25 in these cases.
GS Paper II > Indian Constitution: Fundamental Rights, significant provisions; separation of powers and the role of the judiciary; GS Paper I > secularism and social empowerment
General Awareness > Indian Polity > Fundamental Rights
General Awareness > Current Affairs > Judiciary
General Awareness > Indian Polity
Judicial test, traced to the Shirur Mutt case (1954), under which only practices integral to a faith - without which its fundamental character would change - are protected by Article 25.
A writ commanding a public authority or person to perform a public duty; sought here to direct the school to permit the headscarf.
A school or college that receives no State aid and consequently enjoys wider administrative autonomy, including over dress codes.
A judgment in which the judges on a Bench differ with no majority; the matter is then placed before a larger Bench, as in Aishat Shifa (2022).
A court-assigned, publisher-independent case reference - here 2026:AHC:176816-DB, where DB denotes a Division Bench.