Saree or Churidar is the question that has been called for to decide in the writ petition filed by a student, who is undergoing internship after completing her BHMS Degree Course (Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery) in the third respondent college and who has been directed to wear only Saree during her internship.

2. It is unfortunate that the issue regarding the dress to wear, without settling amicably, before the present litigation, has been lawyer s notice, reply notice and petition to National Commission of Women.

3. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition, are set out here under:-

3.1. The petitioner studied BHMS Course in the third respondent college. She passed her final degree examination in August, 2008. She has to undergo compulsory internship for a period of one year before she qualified to receive the degree. On 4.11.2008, she attended the first day of duty on internship. She had been instructed to come dressed up in Saree. The petitioner along with few other students represented the matter to the Principal and Correspondent. But, it was not considered favourably.

3.2 The petitioner was allowed to join the classes on 6th, 7 and 8.11.2008. On 7.11.2008 (sic), she had been called by the Correspondent and was advised to wear Saree for internship. It has been explained by the petitioner that she never wear the Saree and she has been using decent Salwar Kameez or cotton/Kadhi Kurthas. The third respondent there upon called her to submit her decision in writing. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 8.11.2008. She was not allowed to attend the classes and was warned that she would be issued with T.C., if not wearing Saree.

3.3. The petitioner, therefore caused a lawyer s notice dated 4.11.2008 not to insist a non-prescribed dress code and allow her to complete the internship. A reply had been received alleging that she has misbehaved in a rude manner and she was advised to join some other institution for internship. She has caused a reply notice dated 22.11.2008 seeking permission to attend the compulsory internship. The fourth respondent issued a reply informing her that she would allowed to join the internship if she is ready to follow the rules and regulations or otherwise, she has to choose some other institution.

3.4. The petitioner received a reply from the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai informing her that no dress code is prescribed by the University. Thereafter, she attempted to meet the authorities of the third and fourth respondents, but she was not permitted.

The petitioner, therefore has to approach this Court by filling the present writ petition for a mandamus forbearing the third and fourth respondents from imposing a non-prescribed dress code insisting the women internship candidates to wear only Saree and to permit her to complete the internship by wearing Salwar Kameez with Duppatta and Churidar with Duppatta.

4. Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the third and fourth respondents, which sets out the following facts:-

4.1. The writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of The Constitution of India on the sole ground that neither of the respondents are a State under Article 12 of the constitution of India and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. The dress Code evolved by the third respondent, provides that all girl internees should wear Sarees and boy internees should wear formal pant and shift during one year compulsory rotatory resident internship. It is being followed by all the students.

4.2 The petitioner instead of heeding the advice, issued a lawyer s notice. She has also filed a complaint before the National Commission for Women. It has been properly explained by these respondents. The dress code has been evolved in order to instil and maintain discipline, dignity and decorum among the internees.

Thus, the counter affidavit sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have heard Ms. A. Arulmozhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. AL. Ganthimathi, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. C.A. Diwakar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

6. The first and foremost submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the dress code prescribed by UGC and the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. University are along with Saree Churidar, Salwar and trouser and shirt with long sleeves for girls. The third respondent college has published a prospectus prescribing some conditions and regulations and in that prospectus there is no dress code prescribing only Saree for girls doing internship. The act of the third respondent is highly arbitrary as the dignity of training for professional courses is not attached only with Sarees but also with other decent dresses which cover the body.

7. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the third and fourth respondents that the dress code prescribed by the third respondent directing the girl internees to wear Sarees cannot be faulted with at all. To instil and maintain discipline, dignity and decorum among the internees, such dress code is prescribed.

8. Before considering the question as to whether the dress code insisted by third and fourth respondents viz., that the students who undergo the internship for a period of one year after completion of BHMS degree course, is valid or not, it has to be seen whether such insistence has got any rhyme or reason or it is irrational. It is common knowledge that in most of the schools in Tamil Nadu, the original dress for girls was Full Skirt with Half-Saree. This was followed time immemorial in most of the schools in Tamil Nadu. Years to come, most of the schools are now permitting Salwar Kameez with Duppatta or Churidar with Duppatta. In fact, in most of the schools, the uniforms prescribed are Salwar Kameez with Duppatta or Churidar with Duppatta. Even in colleges also, these dresses are considered to be decent dresses.

9. It would not be out of context to refer about the request made by Personal Assistants to Hon ble Judges, High Court, Madras to permit them to wear Churidars with Duppatta / Salwar Kameez with Duppatta. It has been resolved in the Administrative Committee that such request could be acceded to and the representation submitted in this regard has been considered favourably in favour of the Personal Assistants and that they are now permitted to wear Churidars with Duppatta and Salwar Kameez with Duppatta. Thus, Salwar Kameez with Duppatta and the Churidar with Duppatta are considered to be well decent dresses. While so, insisting that Saree alone is a decent dress, at no stretch of imagination, could be considered as a well decision taken by the third and fourth respondents. Absolutely, there is no rhyme or reason to come to such a conclusion. The decision is nothing but irrational without any basis whatsoever.

10. The next question that arises for consideration is whether there is any prescribed rule that has been framed as far as the third and fourth respondents college is concerned insisting the girl students who undergo the internship, to wear only Saree and not Salwar Kameez with Duppatta/Churidar with Duppatta. No such rule or regulation has been cited before me to show that the girl internees should wear only Sarees at the time of internship. Even the prospectus does not reveal any such dress code. Al the more, in a reply letter by the first respondent for the legal notice sent on behalf of the petitioner, it is clearly stated that the University is not all connected in the matter and no dress code is prescribed by the University for the students undergoing the course. Thus, it is to be seen that no dress code has been prescribed either by the University or by the third respondent college by way of rules and regulations. If there is any rules and regulations prescribed by the University or by the college concerned and still if the petitioner insists to wear a dress which is not a dress prescribed therein, then there would be some meaning in the direction of the third respondent to wear only Saree. Furthermore, as discussed earlier, wearing of Salwar Kameez with Duppatta/Churidar with Duppatta cannot be considered to be an indecent dress. The dress which covers the entire body, at no stretch of imagination, could be considered as a dress which cannot be permitted in the college.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the third and fourth respondents drew my attention to the judgment in Jasbir Kaur and Others v. Union of India and Others AIR 2004 SC 293 : (2003) 8 SCC 720 and contended that prescription of dress code would not be subjected to judicial review. I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. First of all, the said judgment deals with a case of prescribing uniform for members of the Military Nursing Service. This cannot be equated with the dress code prescribed by the authorities for the internees of BHMS course. Even otherwise, when the dispute arose regarding the uniform to be worn by the members of military service, the Union of India constituted the Indian Military Nursing Dress Review Committee. The said committee held its deliberation and made a report. The committee meticulously considered the objections and having considered the various aspects, recommended a safari suit of a soothing colour in suitable fabric with badges of rank on the shoulders to meet the seasonable requirements of summer and winter as the best available option. Considering those aspects, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that there is no scope for interference in such matters. In fact, Their Lordships have pointed out to the learned counsels who have appeared in those writ petitions that there was no question of Article 21 being considered unless they were able to demonstrate that the prescribed uniform was outrageous of modesty and dignity of womanhood or that it was so inconvenient as not to bear the onslaughts of nature. Thus, the judgment referred to above would not come to the rescue of respondents 3 and 4.

12. Yet another decision that has been cited by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 is Sir M. Venkata Subba Rao Matriculation Higher Secondary School Staff Association v. Sir M. Venkata Subba Rao Matriculation Higher Secondary School, (2004) 2 MLJ 653. That is a case where the management of the school had prescribed particular dress code in the form of code of conduct to teachers. In those circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the management of unaided matriculation schools have power to prescribe a dress code for teachers and to punish them with fine for violation thereof. In the case on hand, it is not the case of respondents 3 and 4 that a particular dress code has been prescribed in the rules and regulations. In the absence of such rules and regulations, respondents 3 and 4 cannot insist the petitioner to wear only Saree and not Salwar Kameez with Duppatta and Churidar with Duppatta, which are considered to be well decent dresses.

13. For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered view that the insistence of respondents 3 and 4 to wear only Saree and not Salwar Kameez with Duppatta/Churidar with Duppatta is nothing but irrational and without any basis. As stated already, the matter in issue should have been settled amicably between the management of the college and the student. But, unfortunately, as stated already, it has faced legal notices, petition to National Commission for Women and now a writ petition before this Court.

14. In fine, I direct respondents 3 and 4 not to insist the petitioner to wear only Saree and permit her to wear Salwar Kameez with Duppatta/Churidar with Duppatta to attend the internship and the writ petition is ordered accordingly. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Ordered accordingly.