A school manager cannot bar a teacher for wearing churidar; attire is a personal choice absent a legal dress code, Kerala High Court rules

The petitioner, Headmistress of Eeswara Vilasom High School, alleged that the school Manager directed her to wear a saree rather than a churidar and caused her to be stopped at the school gate when she wore a churidar.

She relied on a Directorate of General Education circular permitting teachers to wear churidar and sought, among other reliefs, the Manager’s disqualification and police protection.

The Manager denied imposing a dress code or obstructing the petitioner. The Government Pleader stated that an educational authority’s enquiry into the incident was underway.

An interim order had directed police protection to enable the petitioner to enter the school and perform her duties.

Whether the Manager could insist that the petitioner wear a saree, or otherwise restrict her choice to wear a churidar, in the absence of a lawful dress-code requirement.

Whether directions were warranted to protect the petitioner’s access to the school and to address the Manager’s conduct while the authorities’ enquiry remained pending.

The Court stated that a citizen’s attire is ordinarily a matter of personal choice and that neither society nor an individual may dictate a person’s dress without legal authority; it connected that choice with individual dignity and fundamental rights, without identifying a specific constitutional article.

The Court also relied on the Directorate’s circular dated 20 November 2015, which permitted teachers to wear churidar.

The circular permitted teachers to wear churidar, and the Court found no basis for the Manager to override that permission through a personal preference for sarees.

However, because the Manager disputed the allegations and an official enquiry was ongoing, the Court made no factual finding on whether the alleged obstruction occurred and declined to decide the requested disqualification relief. It left the matter to the competent authorities to act according to law after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard.

It directed the Station House Officer to ensure that the petitioner could enter the school and perform her duties without obstruction from the Manager or others while she remained in service.

It further left any pending enquiry concerning the Manager to the competent authorities, to proceed in accordance with law and after hearing the petitioner and the Manager.

The writ petition was disposed of with those declarations and directions; no order disqualifying the Manager was made.