Subscribe
The Kerala High Court has declared that a citizen’s choice of attire is a matter of personal choice and that nobody can dictate what a person should wear based on social customs or personal notions of what is appropriate.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan made the observation while disposing of a petition filed by Sindhu S Nair, Headmistress of Eeswara Vilasom High School, Kottarakkara, against Suresh Kumar, the school manager. Sindhu had alleged that the manager prevented her from entering the school because she was wearing a churidar instead of a saree.
The court noted that the dispute, at first glance, appeared to concern a simple question of attire. However, it said the issue had a deeper constitutional and institutional significance as it involved “the dignity, autonomy and professional standing of an educated woman” and the limits of managerial authority over her personal choice of dress.
According to Sindhu’s petition, Suresh entered her office on February 3, 2026 and allegedly told her that she should not wear a churidar to school. She further alleged that he called security personnel in her presence and instructed them not to allow her into the school if she came wearing a churidar.
The following day, the petitioner was allegedly stopped at the school gate because she was wearing a churidar. She complained to the police, following which she was allowed to enter the school premises. An FIR was subsequently registered based on her complaint.
Sindhu relied on a 2015 circular issued by the General Education Department, which, according to the court, permits teachers to wear churidars.
The court stressed that the case was not a contest between a saree and a churidar. “The Constitution does not make a woman's dignity contingent on her conformity with another person’s preferred mode of attire,” Justice Kunhikrishnan observed.
“Dress is a personal choice. No one can restrict it, and no one can dictate which dress an individual must wear,” the court said, adding that the dignity and cultural tradition attached to an attire should be decided by the person concerned, rather than society.
The court further held 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.”
Since the government circular permitted teachers to wear churidar, the court said Suresh Kumar could not interfere with the petitioner’s choice of attire.
The manager Suresh, however, denied imposing any dress code or preventing Sindhu from entering the school. In his counter affidavit, he described the allegations as false and said he had neither threatened her nor authorised security personnel to check her dress. He also alleged that the headmistress had committed dereliction of duty and was facing disciplinary proceedings.
The court declined to make observations on those allegations as an enquiry was already underway.
While the court did not decide Sindhu’s request to disqualify Suresh as manager, it directed that she should be allowed to enter the school and discharge her duties without obstruction.
The court made a broader declaration in its final order: “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.”
It also directed the police to ensure that the petitioner can enter the school freely, without obstruction from Suresh, for the remainder of her service.
