What a person wears is a matter of personal choice, and no one can dictate a particular dress without legal backing, the Kerala High Court has observed while ordering police protection for a school headmistress who was denied entry for wearing a churidar instead of a sari.

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by the headmistress of Eeswara Vilasom High School in Kottarakkara. She had sought protection to enter the school during the remainder of her tenure after alleging that the school manager had obstructed her over her choice of attire.

“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 said.

The headmistress alleged that the manager had entered her office and told her that she should not wear a churidar to school and must wear only a sari. She further alleged that the manager called security personnel in her presence and instructed them not to allow her into the school if she was wearing a churidar.

According to the petition, the security staff stopped her from entering the school on February 2 when she arrived wearing a churidar. She then approached the jurisdictional SHO, who helped her enter the school premises. She subsequently filed a complaint, following which an FIR was registered against the manager.

The headmistress also pointed out that a 2015 circular issued by the Director of General Education on the dress code for teachers does not prohibit them from wearing churidars.

The government informed the court that the District Educational Officer had visited the school and conducted an inquiry following the incident. The officer had submitted a prima facie report to the Deputy Director of Education recommending disciplinary action against the manager, and the matter was pending consideration.

The manager, who was arrayed as the sixth respondent, appeared before the court and denied the allegations.

The court said the dispute may initially appear to be simply about whether a headmistress can wear a churidar instead of a sari to school. However, it said the issue also concerned her dignity, autonomy and personal choice.

“A sari 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,” the court observed, adding that a churidar, when worn decently and appropriately in a professional setting, does not diminish the competence, decorum or authority of a headmistress.

The court also noted that the education department's circular permits teachers to wear churidars and held that the manager could not impose his personal preference on the petitioner.

“I am of the considered opinion that no one can dictate that a person should wear a particular attire unless there is backing of law in connection with the dress code of an institution or other establishment,” the court said.

The court directed the police to ensure that the headmistress could enter the school premises freely, without obstruction from the manager or anyone else, for the remainder of her service.
(With LiveLaw inputs)