Citizen’s Attire A Personal Choice: Kerala High Court Directs Police To Ensure Entry Of Headmistress Allegedly Stopped For Wearing Churidar
The Court held that the departmental circular permitted teachers to wear churidars and that the school manager could not interfere with the Headmistress’s choice of attire.
Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court said a citizen’s attire is a matter of personal choice and directed the police to ensure the unobstructed entry of a Headmistress who alleged she was stopped at the school gate for wearing a churidar instead of a saree.
Since the school manager denied the allegation and a departmental inquiry was pending, the Court directed the police to act if she faced any further obstruction while discharging her duties.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Headmistress seeking the manager’s disqualification and police protection after she was allegedly prevented from entering the school because she had worn a churidar instead of a saree.
A Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, upon hearing the matter, remarked: “I declare that a citizen's attire is his/her choice, and nobody can insist that it conform to society's customs, nor can anybody dictate that it be in a manner acceptable to society, especially when no law backs it.”
The Court further directed: “If there is any obstruction from the 6th respondent or others to the petitioner in discharging her duties as a Headmistress, the 5th respondent will ensure that the petitioner enters the School premises freely, without any obstruction from the 6th respondent, till she is in service.”
Advocate Syam J. Sam appeared for the petitioner. Government Pleader Shahina Hameed appeared for the State authorities, while Advocate V.A. Muhammed appeared for the school manager.
Background
The petitioner was serving as the Headmistress of a high school. She alleged that the school manager entered her office and instructed her not to wear a churidar while attending school. According to her, the manager also directed the security personnel to deny her entry if she arrived wearing a churidar.
The petitioner alleged that the security personnel subsequently stopped her at the school gate because she was wearing a churidar. She approached the police, following which she was assisted in entering the premises.
The petitioner relied upon a circular issued by the Directorate of General Education which permitted teachers to wear churidars. A criminal case was registered on her complaint, and she also submitted a representation to the General Education Department.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the High Court passed an interim order directing the police to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner so that she could enter the school and continue working as Headmistress without interference from the manager.
The Government Pleader informed the Court that the District Educational Officer had visited the school, conducted an inquiry and submitted a prima facie report recommending disciplinary action against the manager. The inquiry remained pending.
The manager denied imposing any dress code or instructing the security personnel to prevent the petitioner’s entry. He contended that the petition had been filed to counter separate disciplinary proceedings concerning the petitioner’s alleged dereliction of duty.
Court’s Observations
The Court held that what a citizen wears is ordinarily a matter of personal choice and forms part of the citizen’s fundamental rights. It observed that society cannot dictate how a person must dress unless such a restriction is supported by law.
The Court stated: “What dress one wears is ordinarily a matter of personal choice of every citizen of this country. No one or society as a whole can dictate how a citizen should dress without the backing of the law. This is a part of the fundamental rights of every citizen.”
The Court observed that the dispute, though apparently concerning whether a Headmistress could wear a churidar instead of a saree, raised questions concerning the dignity, autonomy and professional standing of a woman employee and the permissible limits of managerial authority over her attire.
The Court observed that a saree may be considered graceful and respectful by an individual, but such appreciation cannot transform it into a compulsory uniform merely because of another person’s preference.
The Court added that wearing a churidar decently in a professional setting did not diminish the Headmistress’s competence, authority or the decorum of her office. It stated: “A saree may be a graceful and respectful form of attire to one individual. Yet its dignity cannot be converted into a compulsory uniform by force of individual preference. Similarly, a churidar, when worn decently and appropriately in a professional setting, does not diminish the competence, decorum or authority of the Headmistress.”
The Court held that the Constitution does not make a woman’s dignity dependent upon conformity with another person’s preferred mode of attire. It observed that cultural tradition and the dignity associated with particular clothing must be assessed by the person wearing it rather than dictated by society.
The Court remarked: “This case is not a contest between a saree and a churidar. The Court must decide whether a Manager can turn his personal notion into a binding command.”
The Court examined the circular issued by the Directorate of General Education and held that it permitted the petitioner, as a teacher, to wear a churidar.
The Court consequently held that the manager could not interfere with her choice of attire when the clothing concerned was expressly permissible under the applicable departmental circular.
The Court added that if any unlawful direction concerning attire was issued, the law-enforcement authorities were required to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
The Court declined to direct the manager’s immediate disqualification because the educational authorities were already conducting an inquiry into his alleged conduct.
The Court also declined to express any view on the manager’s allegations concerning the petitioner’s performance or the disciplinary notices issued to her. It clarified that the competent authorities remained free to examine those matters in accordance with law.
The Court clarified that, if an inquiry into the manager’s conduct was pending, the competent authorities were free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law after hearing both sides.
Conclusion
The Court disposed of the writ petition by declaring that a citizen’s attire is a personal choice which cannot be compelled to conform to societal customs or preferences without legal authority.
It directed the police to ensure that the petitioner could enter the school and discharge her duties as Headmistress without obstruction from the manager or others for the remainder of her service.
The Court permitted the competent authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law after hearing both sides.
Cause Title: Sindhu S. Nair v. Secretary, General Education Department and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:76813)