Kerala General Education Minister V. Sivankutty moderated his position Wednesday on a dispute over a student wearing a hijab at a Church-run public school in Kochi. The minister stated the matter was best resolved through consensus at the school level. This followed reports of an agreement reached between the school management and the student’s parents.
The dispute involved a Class 8 student at St. Rita’s Public School in Palluruthy. Her parents insisted she wear a hijab, conflicting with the school’s established uniform policy. The school declared a two-day holiday from Monday to manage the escalating situation. The school reopened Wednesday, but the student was absent due to health reasons, according to school sources.
Minister’s Initial Stance and School’s Defense
Earlier in the week, on Tuesday, Minister Sivankutty intervened. He directed the school to allow the Muslim student to continue her education while wearing her religious headscarf. He also sought a detailed report from school authorities, alleging they had denied her religious rights and caused mental distress.
In morning statements on Wednesday from Thiruvananthapuram, Sivankutty strongly reaffirmed the student’s right to wear a hijab. He declared, “The student can attend classes wearing a hijab until she and her parents decide otherwise.” The minister emphasized that students’ rights are guaranteed by both the Indian Constitution and specific educational laws at state and national levels. Citing findings from a departmental inquiry report, he criticized the school management. He stated its actions amounted to a “violation” of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
However, the school management firmly defended its uniform policy. Principal Sister Heleena Alby maintained that all decisions regarding school uniforms fall under the management’s discretion. She referenced previous court rulings that support the school’s authority. Sister Alby asserted the school operates on secular principles, stating, “Ours is a secular country. Everyone is equal here. Under a standard rule, it cannot be mandated that students belonging to a particular religion must wear a particular attire.” She also clarified that the student remained enrolled and had not been expelled from the school.
Moderated Position and Reported Consensus
Following the school management’s robust defense, Minister Sivankutty addressed the media again. He notably moderated his earlier position. He highlighted media reports indicating that the school management and the student’s parents had already reached an understanding. “If there is a consensus at the school level, let it end there,” Sivankutty stated. He reiterated the government’s firm stance that “no one has the right to deny a student’s right to education.”
The minister further indicated that information suggested the student’s parents had withdrawn their previous demand for her to wear the hijab during school hours. Based on this, Sivankutty concluded that the specific issue of the hijab wearing during school hours “no longer existed.” The core principle, he stressed, remains ensuring access to education for all students.
School’s Perspective on Resolution
The legal adviser representing the school management strongly contested the Education Minister’s initial remarks, describing them as “absolutely incorrect.” The adviser stated that the Education Department’s report lacked a proper study of the actual situation. She confirmed that the matter had been amicably settled. Furthermore, the adviser noted that the girl’s parents had already communicated to the media their desire for their daughter to continue her studies at St. Rita’s Public School .
The dispute first gained public attention after a letter from Principal Sister Heleena Alby surfaced on social media. In the letter, the principal outlined how pressure from the student, her parents, and external individuals, coupled with the student arriving without the prescribed uniform, had caused mental stress. This led some staff members and other students to request leave.
The school’s legal adviser concluded, “So, the school has decided to follow the rule of the land — the law of the court.”