#publicinterest Archives

On Wednesday, the Bombay High Court noted that the dress code of a Mumbai institution, which forbids students from donning hijab, nakab, burka, stole, caps, and other items, is in the greater academic benefit of the students. Nine female students from NG Acharya and D. K. Marathe College of Art, Science, and Commerce filed a writ case challenging the dress code, which was dismissed by a division bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and Rajesh S Patil.

The Bombay High Court also referred to the Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in Resham v. State of Karnataka which maintained a government decree establishing a dress code that forbade the wearing of hijabs. The Karnataka High Court ruled in that case that the dress code did not violate any basic rights because it was intended to treat students as a homogeneous class in support of constitutional secularism. The Supreme Court is currently considering a challenge to the Karnataka High Court’s decision, following the division bench’s October 2022 split decision.

The petitioners, who are enrolled in their second and third year of undergraduate studies, contested the dress code, arguing that it infringes upon their fundamental rights to forbid the wearing of headscarves, burkas, stoles, caps, and other items on campus. Students are supposed to dress in a formal, respectable manner that does not indicate their religion in accordance with the contested dress code. The court stated that all students are subject to the clothing code in question, regardless of their language, caste, creed, or religion. It went on to state that the college administration was entitled to basic management powers, which included setting the dress code.

“We do not find as to how these guidelines and instructions are violated by the Instructions issued by the College. On the contrary, the Policy on Code of Ethics laid down by the Management of the College seeks to enforce the aforesaid guidelines and instructions”, the court stated, along with, “We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Full Bench that prescription of a dress code is intended to achieve uniformity amongst students in the school/college so as to maintain discipline and avoid disclosure of one’s religion.”

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

The accused, who is considered a kid under the Juvenile Justice Act, must be treated with the same respect as all other children who are in conflict with law, the court decided.

In the case of Pooja Gagan Jain v. State of Maharashtra, the infamous Pune minor Porsche accident in its order of releasing the juvenile accused from the observation home, the Bombay high court determined that the call to “see the accused’s action and not his age” would have to be overlooked.

The divison bench of justices Manjusha Deshpande and Bharati Dangre, determined that the juvenile accused must receive the same treatment that every other child in conflict with law is entitled to receive. They stated that the purpose of the 2015 Act, which is that to ensure children in conflict with law are meant to be dealt separately and not like adults. Although the prosecution requested that the accused be charged with a ‘heinous offence’ and prosecuted as an adult, the Court emphasised that such considerations must be consistent with the law’s provisions. It underlined that the legislative framework requires an inclusive and enabling environment to lessen children’s vulnerabilities. As a result, the Court has granted the juvenile accused relief under the Juvenile Justice Act’s specific provisions.

This order was passed after the accused’s aunt moved the Bombay high court saying that the accused was detained by juvenile justice board in observation home, arbitrarily and unlawfully.

Two people were killed when the juvenile in conflict with law, son of a well-known Pune builder struck a motorbike in the Kalyani Nagar neighbourhood with his Porsche car. Later on, it was discovered that the accused had been drinking with his friends at a pub prior to the incident, leading to the whole mishap. In accordance with the requirements of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Act and Sections 304A, 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), he was charged with reckless and careless driving, inflicting harm by jeopardising the safety of people, and causing death by carelessness.

On May 19, he was given bail, but he was subsequently placed under monitoring in a home.

Written By – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Best Lawyers in Bangalore

“Maintaining Secularism” – Bombay High Court Backs College Dress Code Banning Hijabs.

Pune Porche Accident: Bombay High Court Ignores “See Accused’s Action and not Age,” Despite Public Outcry.