.webp)
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a Class XI student seeking permission to wear a headscarf (hijab) along with the prescribed uniform of her school. The Division Bench held that a student cannot insist on adding an item of clothing to a school uniform where the dress code is uniform, bona fide, non-discriminatory and intended to maintain discipline and institutional identity.
The judgment was delivered on August 21, 2026, by Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla in Sukaina Rizvi v. State of U.P. and Others.
Background of the Case
Sukaina Rizvi, a minor student of Tagore Public School, Attarsuiya, Prayagraj, had studied in the school from Class VI to Class X. According to her petition, she had been wearing a headscarf during her earlier years at the school without objection from the authorities. She sought admission to Class XI and wanted to continue wearing the headscarf with the prescribed school uniform.
The student approached the High Court after alleging that the school would not admit her if she insisted on wearing the headscarf. She relied on photographs and school identity cards showing her wearing the uniform with the headscarf during earlier classes.
The school, however, maintained that it followed a common dress code for all students. Its Principal stated that permitting an additional headscarf would amount to an exemption from the uniform policy and could affect school administration and discipline.
Court’s Observations
The Bench held that the prescribed uniform primarily falls within the school’s domain when the dress code is applied uniformly and for legitimate institutional purposes.
“So long as the dress code is uniform, bona fide, non-discriminatory and intended to maintain discipline and institutional identity, the choice of the prescribed uniform primarily lies within the domain of the School.”
The Court further said that the student’s earlier use of a headscarf did not create a vested or enforceable right to continue doing so. The fact that the school had not objected earlier could not prevent it from enforcing its uniform policy later.
The Bench noted that uniforms serve purposes including discipline, equality among students and institutional identity. Since the school’s dress code applied to students irrespective of their religion, the Court found no basis to treat the policy as discriminatory on the material before it.
Headscarf and Essential Religious Practice
The student also argued that wearing the headscarf was an essential religious practice protected by Article 25 of the Constitution.
The Court was not persuaded, noting that the petition did not contain sufficient factual or religious material establishing that wearing the headscarf inside the classroom was obligatory or that not wearing it would alter the fundamental character of her faith.
The Bench also considered decisions of the Kerala, Bombay and Karnataka High Courts. It noted that the Supreme Court had delivered a split verdict in Aishat Shifa (Hijab Case-2 J.) v. State of Karnataka and that there was no final authoritative Supreme Court ruling settling the issue arising from the Karnataka Full Bench decision. The Allahabad High Court nevertheless treated the Karnataka judgment as persuasive authority.
The Court also observed that the photographs on record showed that other girls, including those from the same religious community, were following the prescribed uniform without a headscarf.
Decision
The Allahabad High Court ultimately declined to grant the requested direction to the school. The Bench held that the material placed before it did not establish the petitioner’s claim that wearing the headscarf was an essential part of her religion, while the school’s uniform policy was within its institutional domain.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Sukaina Rizvi v. State of U.P. and Others
Case Number: Writ - C No. 31172 of 2026
Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla
Decision Date: August 21, 2026
