School Dress Codes and Constitutionality Morality in India

Introduction

Educational Institutions play a significant role in shaping the society by imposing discipline, uniformity, ideal behaviors and social responsibilities. One of the important and essential aspects of school life is dress code or uniform. This initiative was brought to introduce uniformity, secularity, and equality etc. irrespective of the students’ background (financial conditions, caste, religion and community). But these educational institutions' culture has become a topic of sparking debate after the banning of Hijab by the Karnataka government.

In February 2022 the Karnataka state government announced the ban of wearing of hijab and any other religious symbols in aided and private schools and pre university colleges which was later withdrawn by them in 13th May 2022. This debate expanded beyond the educational institution and became a controversy surrounding fundamental rights (right to freedom to practice any religion- article 25, right to life with dignity and personal autonomy- article 21, right to equality- article 14, right to freedom of speech and expression- article 19(1)(a)). Similar kinds of issues regarding turbans, religious symbols, hairstyles and gender specific codes have also arisen in the educational institutions across India. These issues have brought the concept of Constitutional morality vs Social morality in light.

Background

A prominent book called A Cultural History of School Uniform mentioned the history of schooling precisely in Britain over the last five hundred years and set out how school developed in Britain from its origin in clothing charity school pupils. Later, explain that girl’s schools uniform began with gymslips and clothes that girls normally wore but then moved into a more masculine and male form of school uniform. The culture of uniform or school dress code is not new; it originated from the colonial educational system whose aim was to poster discipline, conformity and institutional hierarchy.

Meaning of Constitutional Morality and Social Morality.

Constitutional morality

Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. This line is quoted by the father of Indian Constitution Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

 It refers to adherence to the core principles of the Constitution, which include justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, secularism, and the rule of law. It is a guiding principle that ensures the actions of the government and individuals align with the values and spirit of the Constitution, rather than simply its written words.

Constitutional morality is more abstract than statutory laws, which are fixed and can be directly enforced. It demands respect for the Constitution’s values even when they conflict with certain social norms, beliefs, or practices. It aims to upholds the integrity of democracy and ensure the protection of individual rights.

Social morality

Social morality is a set of values and norms that exist in society. These are the rules that govern the members of a society on how they should behave with each other for their welfare and well being. It does not have an exact definition as it varies from culture to culture depending on various beliefs, practices, traditions, or customs prevalent in society.

These are a set of values or conducts that are understood and accepted by members of society. It is important because it provides the guidelines for society to live in peace. It helps people live together in harmony and avoid conflict and tension among themselves. It is about how people behave towards others in their community. It can be done through social, economic, environmental, and political means.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly recognized constitutional morality in several legal cases such as: -

• In both Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India and Naz Foundation vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. constitutional morality prevailed over social morality.

• In Suresh Kumar Koushal vs Naz Foundation The emphasis was given to social morality over constitutional morality.

Legal Analysis

The Constitutional validity of this educational institution's culture of dress code must be examined and analyzed through the lens of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Several Constitutions came into light when the educational institutions imposed restrictions on students’ attire. 

Article 14 – Right to Equality before law. 

The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. It rejects any type of discrimination based on caste, race, and religion, place of birth or sex. This article is having a wide ambit and applicability to safeguard the rights of people residing in India.

The Karnataka High court in its judgement recognized that the school uniforms promote harmony and spirit of common brotherhood transcending religious or sectional diversities. Simultaneously, there is no ground for complaint of manifesting arbitrariness or discrimination as per under the guise article 14 and 15 respectively.

Article 19 (1) (a) – Freedom of speech and expression.

The preference of dress code for the students in educational institutions that with the four walls of the classroom as distinguished from the rest of the premise of school does not violate rights protected by the constitution, when they are religion neutral/ promote secularism and universally applicable to all the students. Also, the aims and objective of the school uniform will be defeated if there is no uniformity in the terms of uniform.

Article 21- Right to life with privacy and personal autonomy.

The Karnataka High Court recognized that preference of uniforms/dress code in schools does not violate the right to privacy and personal autonomy of the students guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

Article 25- Right to freedom to practice any religion.

The Karnataka High Court while dealing with the Hijab ban violated article 25 declared that wearing Hijab is not recognized as an essential religious practice under Islam. Essential religious practices that are integral part of the respective religion. This interpretation permits the State to regulate religious matters without violating constitutional protections under Article 25.

• In S.R. Bommai & Ors. vs Union of India, the court consider that our Constitution never prohibit anybody from practicing their religion either privately or publicly. It prohibits the

  State from identifying itself with or favoring any particular religion or religion sect or 

  Denomination. The duty of State is to accord equal treatment to all religions and religious 

  sects and denominations.

• In Aishat Shifa vs State of Karnataka (2022) the Karnataka High Court declared that the 

  Hijab wearing is not an essential religious practice in Islam. The petition was filed in the

  Supreme Court in which a division bench gave a split verdict Justice Hemant Gupta

  recognized the ban while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia emphasized on the right of choice of 

  individual and right to education.

Critical Analysis 

The controversies regarding dress code/uniform reflects a deeper constitutional contradiction between individual liberty and institutional control. The State justify their action under Section 133 (2) of the Karnataka Education Act through this act the State Government has the right to make their own rules and regulation related educational matters. It also claims that this ban will strengthen the idea of Secularism and Equality. But there are several claims which show that the ban is unconstitutional and is not line with the doctrine of Secularism and Equality such as: -

• The ban was commenced only with the constraint over wearing of Hijab and not all the religious coverings which precisely reflect the intention of State government to target Muslim Community.

• These types of bans support the feeling of Islamophobia and alienate the Muslim community which is already facing hostility.

• In many Muslim family wearing of Hijab is compulsory for the female members and without it they are not allowed to step outside the home premises and after the ban they cannot allowed to school which violates their Right to Education mention under the Article 21A.

• As per the Hon’ble court judgement in fundamental rights are not absolute and subjected to reasonable restriction related to public order, morality or health. But the wearing of Hijab does not pose any threat to any other students, faculty or any other employees of the institution so as to cover under the public order problem.

• 12 Muslims submitted a memorandum seeking permission for wearing Hijab in classrooms which was subsequently denied. 6 were decided to continue the classes while other 6 decided to drop out.

Conclusion

School and School dress/uniform play a crucial aspect in the life of every student. It is the place where students are nurtured with discipline, social values and a sense of community. The aim and objective of dress code/uniform in educational institutions is to promote equality and secularism. However, its implementation with the alignment of Constitutional/fundamental rights remains a major issue. 

The idea of Secularism mentioned in the Preamble of Indian Constitution should not dilute the personal identity of any individual person. Schools and any educational institutions are the source of development for students. Therefore, they should not convert into a source for religious hatred or discrimination.

The judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court reflect the need for introduction of a more precise and balanced solution for this issue.

Therefore, The Indian Constitution is a source of empowerment of its citizens and must not be used as a weapon for targeting them.

Author: Parul Kumari, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

1. Sebin James, 'Karnataka Govt Withdraws 2022 Hijab Ban Order; Permits Religious Symbols Including Hijab, Turban, Rudraksha With Prescribed Uniform' (Live Law, 14 May 2026) https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/karnataka-government-withdraws-hijab-ban-order-permits-religious-symbols-schools-colleges-534140 accessed 5 June 2026

2. Rachel Shanks, 'Review of A Cultural History of School Uniform by Kate Stephenson' (2022) 29(1) Education in the North https://doi.org/10.26203/h6ad-hx08 accessed 5 June 2026

3. 'Constitutional Morality: The Pillar of Democracy and Justice in India' (Indian Institute of Legal Studies Blog, 15 November 2024) https://www.iilsindia.com/blogs/constitutional-morality-the-pillar-of-democracy-and-justice-in-india/ accessed 4 June 2026

4. Surbhi Jindal, 'Social Morality vs Constitutional Morality with Special Reference to Navtej Singh Johar V Union of India' (Manupatra Articles, 21 December 2022) articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Social-Morality-vs-Constitutional-Morality-with-special-reference-to-Navtej-Singh-Johar-V-Union-of-India accessed 5 June 2026

5. Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 (SC)

6. Naz Foundation v Government of NCT of Delhi (2009) 160 DLT 277 (Delhi HC)

7. Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation (2014) 1 SCC 1 (SC)

8. Constitution of India 1950, art 14.

9. Constitution of India 1950, art 15.

10. Prescribing Uniform in Schools Does Not Violate Fundamental Rights, Students Cannot Object to It: HC' The Hindu (Bengaluru, 15 March 2022) https://www.thehindu.com accessed 5 June 2026

11. Constitution of India 1950, art 19(1)(a)

12. Arunima Bose, 'The Uniform Can Exclude Any Other Apparel Like Bhagwa or Blue Shawl That May Have the Visible Religious Overtones; Kar HC Upholds Hijab Ban' (SCC Times, 15 March 2022) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/03/15/the-uniform-can-exclude-any-other-apparel-like-bhagwa-or-blue-shawl-that-may-have-the-visible-religious-overtones/ accessed 5 June 2026

13. Constitution of India 1950, art 21

14. Prescribing Uniform in Schools Does Not Violate Fundamental Rights, Students Cannot Object to It: HC' The Hindu (Bengaluru, 15 March 2022) https://www.thehindu.com accessed 5 June 2026

15. Constitution of India 1950, art 25

16. Aditya Raj, 'Karnataka Hijab Ban Case: Balancing Religious Freedom (Article 25) With Uniform Dress Codes in Educational Institutions' (Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research) (30 May 2025) https://www.ijllr.com/post/karnataka-hijab-ban-case-balancing-religious-freedom-article-25-with-uniform-dress-codes-in-educa accessed 6 June 2026

17. Fatima Hussain Syed v Bharat Education Society and Ors AIR 2003 Bom 75

18. S R Bommai v Union of India AIR 1994 SC 1918

19. Aishat Shifa v State of Karnataka (2022) 15 SCC 285 (SC)

20. The Karnataka Education Act 1983, s 133(2)

21. Medha Srivastava, 'The Hijab Ban in India has nothing to do with Secularism' (Verfassungsblog, 16 March 2022) https://verfassungsblog.de/the-hijab-ban-in-india-has-nothing-to-do-with-secularism/ accessed 8 June 2026

22. Constitution of India, art 21A

23. Angela Elizabeth John, Drishti Bansal and Tania Abraham, 'The Hijab Debate – A Socio-Legal Perspective' (CSPS Debate) https://cspsindia.org/the-hijab-debate-a-socio-legal-perspective\ accessed 8 June 2026

24. Rebecca Rose Varghese and Vignesh Radhakrishnan, 'Data | Hijab Row: Why the Ban is a Double Blow to Muslim Girl Students' (The Hindu, 13 March 2022) https://www.thehindu.com/... accessed 8 June 2026