R (SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15; [2007] 1 AC 100; [2006] 2 All ER 487

Educational institutions often implement uniform policies to promote a sense of equality and discipline among students.

• However, these policies can sometimes lead to conflicts with religious practices, particularly in schools with diverse faith backgrounds.

• This differentiation can raise concerns about whether such policies infringe upon a pupil's right to freely manifest their religion.

When a pupil is excluded from school due to a conflict between their religious practices and the school's uniform policy, it raises questions about the breach of their right to education.

• According to Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, individuals have the right to education, and exclusion based on religious dress requirements may be considered a violation of this right.

• Ensuring that educational policies accommodate religious practices while maintaining school standards is crucial to upholding both educational and religious freedoms.

Shabina Begum (“Claimant”), a schoolgirl who practiced the Muslim faith, attended a mixed-sex, multi-community school located outside her family’s catchment area.

• Although the majority of students at the school were Muslim, the student body included individuals from a variety of faiths.

• The school implemented a uniform policy intended to promote social cohesion and harmony among its diverse student population.

• The policy offered three uniform options for female students, including the shalwar kameeze, which had been developed in consultation with parents, students, school staff, and local mosques.

  • The shalwar kameeze consisted of a sleeveless smock-like dress with a square neckline, revealing the wearer's shirt collar and tie, paired with loose trousers that tapered at the ankles.

  • Girls were allowed to wear blue headscarves.

• The school's dress code was communicated to all prospective parents and students.

During her first two years at the school, the Claimant wore the shalwar kameeze. However, she later determined that this option did not meet the strict requirements of her religious beliefs.

• On one occasion, she arrived at school wearing a jilbab—a long coat-like garment that covered the shape of the female body and represented a stricter adherence to Islamic principles.

• Accompanied by her brother and another young man, she insisted on being allowed to attend school in the jilbab.

• The school refused her entry while wearing the jilbab and instructed her to return in a school-approved uniform.

Although efforts were made to provide the Claimant with alternative educational arrangements during this period, she missed a significant portion of her schooling.

• She eventually enrolled in a different school in the area that permitted the jilbab.

• The Claimant sought judicial review of the decision by the school governors to deny her admission while wearing the jilbab.

• She argued that her exclusion violated her right to manifest her religion under Article 9(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and her right to education under Article 2 of the First Protocol to the Convention.

The initial judge dismissed the claim, ruling that the claimant had not been excluded, and if she had been, there was no infringement of her rights under Article 9(1).

• Any limitation would have been justified under Article 9(2).

• However, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, granting a declaration that the Claimant had been excluded from school without proper procedures and that her rights under Article 9(1) had been violated.

The wearing of the jilbab was a sincere manifestation of the Claimant’s religious belief, thus engaging Article 9(1).

• However, Article 9(1) does not grant an unrestricted right to manifest religion at any time or place.

• Interference with religious manifestation depends on the specific circumstances, including the extent to which an individual can reasonably be expected to practice their beliefs. 

Interference is less likely to be established when a person voluntarily accepts a role or environment that does not accommodate their religious practices, provided there are alternative means to practice their beliefs without undue hardship.

• In this case, the Claimant’s family chose a school outside their catchment area after being informed of the uniform policy.

• There was no significant evidence that attending another school, where the jilbab was permitted, would have posed undue difficulty.

• Thus, the refusal to allow the Claimant to wear the jilbab did not constitute interference with her right to manifest her religious beliefs.

The refusal to allow the Claimant to attend school in the jilbab did not constitute unlawful exclusion.

• The school’s uniform policy was valid and proportionate, and the claimant’s right to education was not violated.

Educational uniform policies aim to ensure equality and discipline but can sometimes conflict with individual religious practices.

• In the case of Shabina Begum, a Muslim schoolgirl, the school’s uniform policy, which included the shalwar kameeze, clashed with her desire to wear a jilbab, a more conservative religious garment.

• The school refused her admission in the jilbab, leading to her missing significant schooling and eventually transferring to another school.

Begum challenged the decision, arguing it violated her rights under Article 9(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of religion) and Article 2 of the First Protocol (right to education).

• The Court of Appeal ruled that while her right to manifest her religion was engaged, the interference was justified.

• The school’s policy was considered lawful and proportionate as it aimed to maintain inclusivity and cohesion.

• Furthermore, Begum’s right to education was not infringed since she could attend another school that accommodated her religious dress.

This case highlights the balance between religious freedoms and maintaining school policies that promote equality and order.