A saree may be graceful and respectful, but “its dignity cannot be converted into a compulsory uniform by force of individual preference”: the Kerala High Court has held that dress choice is fundamental right, ordering police protection for a headmistress stopped at her school gate for wearing a churidar.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has directed the police to ensure that a school headmistress can enter her school freely, after she was allegedly obstructed by the school manager for wearing a churidar instead of a saree. A citizen’s choice of attire is a matter of personal choice that no one can dictate without the backing of law, the Court declared [Sindhu S Nair v. State of Kerala and Others].
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan disposed of the writ petition, WP(C) No. 6142 of 2026, on October 5, 2026. The order carries a declaration on personal attire and a protection direction, and leaves the authorities at liberty to proceed against the manager in accordance with law after hearing both sides.
The Court’s declaration
Justice Kunhikrishnan said the case was about more than a dress code. It concerned, he said, “the dignity, autonomy and professional standing of an educated woman and the permissible limits of managerial authority” over personal choices. On attire, the Court held:
What dress one wears is ordinarily a matter of personal choice of every citizen of this country.
A saree may be a graceful and respectful form of attire, the Court added, but “its dignity cannot be converted into a compulsory uniform by force of individual preference”. The dignity and cultural tradition of an attire, it observed, should be decided by the person concerned and not by society. And because Ext. P1 expressly allows teachers to wear a churidar, the Court noted, any restriction by the manager would run contrary to official policy.
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.
ALSO READ: Bombay HC Declines to Interfere in Mumbai College’s Hijab, Burka, and Naqab Ban Decision
How the row began
The petitioner, aged 50, is the Headmistress of Eswara Vilasom High School in Kollam district. She told the Court that on February 3, 2026, the school manager, Suresh Kumar, confronted her in her office and said she could not wear a churidar to school. She alleged that he instructed the security personnel to stop her if she came in one.
The next day, February 4, 2026, the security personnel allegedly blocked her entry because of the churidar. The Station House Officer, Kottarakkara, then helped her enter the school. She filed an FIR against the manager and made a representation to the Education Department, and she relied on a government circular (Ext. P1) that permits teachers to wear a churidar. She sought the manager’s removal, police protection while discharging her duties and other appropriate relief.
In a counter-affidavit, the manager denied the allegations. He said he never imposed a dress code or authorised the security personnel to enforce one, and alleged that the headmistress had violated her duties under the Kerala Education Rules. These are the parties’ competing contentions, and the Court expressly refrained from deciding the disputed events of February because an inquiry by the District Educational Officer is pending.
Protection and liberty to act
If the sixth respondent or others obstruct the petitioner in discharging her duties as Headmistress, the Court directed, the Station House Officer, Kottarakkara, “will ensure that the petitioner enters the School premises freely, without any obstruction” from the manager, till she is in service. If any inquiry is pending against the manager over his conduct, the competent authorities are free to act in accordance with law after giving both the petitioner and the manager sufficient opportunity of hearing.
What the order settles and what it leaves open
The order places personal attire within the sphere of individual autonomy and dignity, and says an institution’s manager cannot turn his own preference into a compulsory dress rule where no law or rule supports it. It gets there while leaving the disputed facts, and any disciplinary action, to the inquiry already under way.
In practical terms, the headmistress now has a standing direction to the local police to secure her entry. The Court made no finding on the allegations against the manager, who denies them.
Case Title: Sindhu S Nair v. State of Kerala and Others [WP(C) No. 6142 of 2026]
Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, Kerala High Court
Date of Order: October 5, 2026
Appearances: For the petitioner, Advocates Syam J Sam and Daniel Mathews Koshy; for the respondents, Advocates V.A. Muhammed, M. Sajjad and Shahina Hameed