top of page

By:

Minal Sancheti

2 May 2026 at 12:26:53 pm

HC allows student to give exam

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently intervened in the attendance issue of the Indian Law Society's College Pune after the petitioner, Nisarga Khanderao, a student of the college filed a case against the institute. She was not allowed to appear for the examination because of the low percentage of attendance. The student had 53 per cent attendance and the college’s rule of minimum percent was 50. Khanderao’s per centage of attendance surpassed the minimum per centage of attendance decided by...

HC allows student to give exam

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently intervened in the attendance issue of the Indian Law Society's College Pune after the petitioner, Nisarga Khanderao, a student of the college filed a case against the institute. She was not allowed to appear for the examination because of the low percentage of attendance. The student had 53 per cent attendance and the college’s rule of minimum percent was 50. Khanderao’s per centage of attendance surpassed the minimum per centage of attendance decided by the college for its students. The case was filed against the institution by the student and the Bombay High Court passed the judgement in her favour, allowing her to give the exam. The judgment was passed on May 18 and the exam was on May 19. The student who was also the petitioner was in the Five-Year B.B.A. LL.B. course and the exam was conducted by the college. The ILS College counsel S. S. Kanetkar opposed the petitioner saying that the student had approached the HC belatedly, particularly when the action was taken on April 20 and the examinations were already underway. However, it is brought to notice that the court, by orders dated May 4 in a Writ Petition and connected matters, permitted similarly situated students to appear for the examinations, subject to the outcome of the petitions, taking into consideration that their attendance was above 50 per cent. The bench of Justice Sandesh Patil and Gautam Ankhad said in their orders that the petitioner also claims to satisfy the minimum threshold of 50 per cent attendance. “We are prima facie of the view that limited interim protection deserves to be granted so as to avoid irreversible academic prejudice at this stage,” the bench said. The student was permitted to appear for the remaining examinations. However, such permission shall be purely provisional and is subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition. “The student’s name was listed in the defaulter’s list. We had challenged that decision,” said her lawyer Uday Warunjikar.

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments


bottom of page