1. An unusual but interesting case is before me in this Original Petition. The petitioner claims to belong to the ‘Siddha Samaj’, said to be a religious community founded by one Swami Sivananda Paramahamsa. The claim that it is a religious community is not admitted. All the same it can be said that the petitioner is a follower of some cult founded by the said Swamiji. A copy of the rules governing the student members of the cult has been produced in this case during the course of the hearing. The petitioner claims to have been initiated as a Siddha Vidyarthi, a student member, some years ago and he is said to be continuing as such. It is claimed that the members of the Siddha Samaj founded by the Swamiji practise Siddha Vidya for the attainment of self-realisation. The adherents of this faith are said to believe in universal brotherhood and the Divine Supreme. The members of the Samaj including the Siddha students are, according to the petitioner, bound to follow a code of ethics which seek to regulate their observances and practices. These are said to extend even to matters of food and dress. The petitioner avers that the members of the Samaj and Siddha Vidyarthies are strictly forbidden from wearing shirts, coats or other sewn-garments, though they are permitted to cover their nakedness completely by wearing long white and clean dothies and also by covering the upper part of the body with clothes of similar description. The petitioner is employed as an Upper Division Clerk in the Sewage Farm Valiyathura, Trivandrum, and he is of the age of 26. According to him while attending to his work in his office he does not wear a shirt but covers the upper part of the body with a shawl. He has passed his pre-degree examination and is said to be eager to seek higher education in History and Philosophy. In the University evening College at Trivandrum there is a course in History and Philosophy for the B.A degree and the petitioner applied for admission to this course. Pursuant to such application he was asked to appear before the first respondent, the Principal of the University College for interview. The first respondent before whom he so appeared on 20-9-1977, noticing that the petitioner was not wearing a shirt, asked him why that was so. The petitioner is said to have explained that consistent with the practice of the religious sect to which he belonged he could not wear a shirt. It is his case that the Principal seemed to be convinced of the propriety of the petitioner's stand. She—incidentally it is a lady Principal—is said to have directed him to obtain a certificate from the Head of the Samaj concerning the objection to wearing a shirt and it is said that pursuant thereto the original of Ext. P1 certificate issued by the Siddha Samaj Head Office at Badagara in Kerala was produced by the petitioner. That mentioned:

2. The first respondent was not prepared to act upon this and accordingly she issued a memo to the petitioner, Ext. P2, informing him that he would be admitted to the first year B.A Degree course only if he satisfied the day-to-day requirement of coming to the College and attending classes properly dressed as stipulated in the College Calendar. He was further told that a proper dress meant, in the case of a male student, a minimum of a dothi/pant and a shirt of any description. He was further told that the present pattern of his dress, a dhoti and a shawl as upper garment will create the problem of indicipline among the students. He was asked to co-operate. The petitioner complained against this to the Director of Collegiate Education. But that was of no avail and hence he has resorted to this Court.

3. According to the petitioner the term ‘properly dressed’ appearing in the University College Calendar has to be understood and interpreted in the context of the traditions of this country and the conditions prevailing here and not in conformity with the notions entertained by any individual in relation to the western style or pattern of dress. Apart from such considerations he points out that there is a more vital and fundamental issue involved in the case The petitioner has a fundamental right of freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess and practise the religion he has adopted. The term ‘Religion’ would include all religious observances followed and practised by the members of a particular religious community and such observances even extend to matters relating to dress. The case is that the Siddha Samajees and Siddha disciples are strictly forbidden from wearing shirts and therefore any attempt to compel the petitioner to give up the religious practice in the matter of wearing dress would violate the guarantee under article 25 of the Constitution of India. It is said that the petitioner has no objection to w;ar a clean and white cloth covering the entire upper portion of the body and that would be a sufficient substitute for the shirt insisted upon.

4. The Principal of the College has attempted to sustain her action in insisting upon the wearing of a shirt by any student seeking admission to the College The matter is said to be one concering discipline and decorum within the college campus. The discretion of the Principal, it is said, has to stand in such matters. It is in the best interests of the institution that the Principal sought to enforce the requirements of a proper dress. The restriction regarding dress is said to be a part of the discipline maintained in the college campus and this legitimate exercise of power is intended to keep a high standard of morality among the students. It is further pointed out that the students of the University College have to remain for hours in the class rooms, to change the class rooms according to the time table and therefore it may not be possible for a student who wears the shawl alone to cover the body by keeping on the shawl at all times without exposing the body. Girl students are also admitted to the same classes. Out of a sense of fun or an inclination to be mischievous other students may be tempted to pull away the shawl and such situations, it is said, may create embarassing problems for the college authorises. The long and short of it is that once in such matters relaxation is shown that is bound to breed a spirit of indicispline among the students.

5. The claim of the petitioner that he, as a Siddha Vidyarthi, is forbidden from wearing a shirt is strongly refuted. It is said that on enquiry with the authorities of the Mar Ivanios College. Trivandrum, where the petitioner was a student, it was understood that he was always attending the classes dressed in a shirt. It is also said that the restriction regarding the dress among the members of Siddha Samaj is applicable only when they appear in their Ashram and not when they appear in their working place.

6. Article 25 of the Constitution of India astures to all persons equal freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. But such freedom is subject to public order, morality and health. Evidently absolute and unrestricted freedom in the matter of religious practices is not conceived. It is particularly so when the question is one of discipline in an educational institution and if for the purpose of such discipline reasonable restrictions are imposed they would be permissible restrictions.

7. Adequate, if not ample powers must be recognised in the Head of an educational institution to enforce discipline among the student population Unconventional and provocatingly anti-traditional some of the youngsters of both sexes may be in their appearance and conduct outside the college campus but within their colleges they have to subject themselves to measures of discipline. To insist that boys and girls must wear decent apparel in college cannot be considered as encroachment on their personal right or freedom. What is decent dress for the students of either sex cannot be left to the opinion of the students themselves. The best judges in this matter would be the college authorities and unless their decision happens to be perverse there can be no cause for complaint.

8. This takes me to the most difficult question, what is the proper dress for a boy and a girl attending an academic institution. The constant change of fashions of this age reminds one of the change of scenes in a revolving stage. Though at one time the motivation for wearing of clothes was held to be an impulse of modesty that view is undergoing a change in modem times. An alternative theory is that clothes were invented for protection against the elements. Yet another motive is said to be vanity. The dress of women, it is said, has been motivated by the desire for seduction. Fashion has been explained as exploitation of the shifting erogenous zone. Whatever may be the origin of our dress or fashions, we have certain conventions as to what a proper dress is. This varies from place to place and society to society. The convention as to the appropriate dress for attending a temple may vary from the convention of the proper dress for a school or college and that may again vary from the proper dress at a University Convention. That Mahatmaji the Father of our Nation were only the dress of a Fakir would not justify a civil servant's claim to come to office in similar dress or of a student to attend the college in that fashion. The particular requirement of dress adopted in colleges and other educational institutions is only the acceptance of the prevalent norm, a recognition of an existing standard and therefore it reflects the consciousness of the people to the appropriate requirement. It would be an extravagance on the part of the students to claim that they must be free to choose the manner in which they make their appearance in colleges. Provocative tight fitting pants, popularly known as not pants, and ridiculously low cut upper garments are sometimes prescribed even in institutions solely intended for girl students. That, I believe, is for good and weighty reasons. The scope of interference by a court in these matters must necessarily be very limited. That must be the case except where the court feels that there has been an attempt to enforce perverse rules as to dress or observances.

9. In a mixed college there is nothing improper in insisting that male students must wear dhoti and shirt or pant and shirt. That appears to be a proper requirement and normally there would be no scope for interference with insistence on it. One can certainly conceive of problems being created for the teachers and the Principal and even for the students by laxity or relaxation in the matter of such minimum requirements. I do feel one with the Principal that the problem is one of discipline and unless there be weighty reasons to hold that a deviation has to be made in the case of the petitioner no interference would be called for. That I shall certainly examine here.

10. This takes me to the other side of the question, what exactly is the right of a citizen in the matter of freedom of religious practice. Justice Mukherjea, speaking for the Supreme Court of India in the decision in Commr. H.R.E v. L.T Swamiar, AIR. 1954 SC. 282 said thus in relation to religious practice:

“Religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic. There are well known religions in India like Budhism and Jainism which do not believe in God or in any Intelligent first cause. A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrine which are regarded by those who profess that religion at conducive to their spiritual well being, but it would not be correct to say that religion is nothing else but a doctrine or belief. A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion, and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress.

18. The guarantee under our Constitution not only protects the freedom of religious opinion but it protects also acts done in pursuance of a religion and this is made clear by the use of the expression “practice of religion” in Article 25”.

11. We will have to examine this case with a view to see how the impugned restriction of insistence on wearing a shirt operates in the case of the petitioner. 1 need examine the question whether the petitioner belongs to a religious community whose religious observances have to be respected only in the event I find on the facts here that there is a cause for the petitioner to complain. If I find that there could be no reasonable objection based on religious practice I need not consider the larger question of the requirement of discipline in an educational institution vis-a-vis the right to insist upon one's religious practices.

12. Ext. P5 rules are referred to as prohibiting the wearing of a dress by a Siddha Vidyarthi.

13. It is evident that the rule prohibits not the wearing of a shirt but wearing of any upper garment at all. At the bearing my attention has been drawn to R. 29 which enables wearing of shirts by Government servants. But the petitioner's counsel would explain this as limited to Government servants only. What I understand from R. 18C is that the wearing of any upper garment is prohibited because there should be free access of the body to the atmosphere. And wearing of an upper garment whether sewn or not sewn is as much objectionable as the wearing of a shirt, That would mean that the petitioner's objection, if the purpose is to respect rule 18C, should be to the insistence on covering the body and particularly the upper portion of the body. He should have claimed before the Principal that consistent with his religious practices he should be allowed to appear in classes with his body exposed expect for a dhoti. I think it will be safe to assume that the petitioner himself realises that this would be unreasonable. At any rate his claim is not to make appearance in the college in that fashion, but only wearing a shawl as an upper garment. In fact learned counsel Sri. M.N Sukumaran Nair appearing for the petitioner assured me that his client is prepared to assure the Principal that the shawl shall be worn in such fashion that it will under all circumstances cover the body and therefore perform all the functions of the shirt. Before I perused rule 18(C), I was even inclined to persuade the Principal to accept this assurance and make a departure in the case of the petitioner to the strict insistence on wearing a shirt. But after reading rule 18(C) I do not think any circumstances exist to call upon the Principal to make a departure from the usual rule. That is because the objection, consistent with the founder's idea, would be to cover the body with an upper garment and if so a shawl worn in the fashion mentioned would be as objectionable as a shirt. In this background I am not able to understand any rational basis for the petitioner's objection. That would be sufficient to answer the question in this case and in this view no other question arises for decision. The insistence upon wearing a shirt by the Principal of the College appears to be quite in order. Before I part with the case I must observe that assuming the prohibition against wearing a shirt was one contemplated by the rules, and the petitioner had insisted on practising it I would have had to examine the larger question as to whether all practices or dictates of religion could be said to be parts of religious practices to be noticed and protected by court. I have left that question open. The Original Petition is dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer costs.

14. Dismissed.