Child rights panel’s new order raises questions over hair rules, bag checks

Image for representational purpose only

A recent order by the State Child Rights Commission allowing schools to regulate students’ hair and appearance, restrict mobile phones and check student bags has raised questions about child rights and school discipline.

It appears to take a different position from last month’s order by Commission member Shajesh Bhaskar, which upheld children’s right to grow their hair as they wished and urged schools to respect individuality, prevent gender-based humiliation and forced haircuts, and prioritise learning over appearance.

The latest order by Wilson F. directs schools to enforce rules on uniforms, hair, mobile phones and cosmetics, and permits bag checks for harmful items, provided students’ dignity is protected. It bars disciplinary measures that humiliate students, cause mental distress or deny them education. While schools must protect students from harm, rules on hair and appearance may restrict individual freedom and raise concerns about discrimination against transgender and gender-nonconforming students.

Indu Menon, who secured the earlier ruling, criticised the latest order for favouring teachers over children. “The Commission is to protect the rights of the children, and not that of the teacher,” she said. She cited the case of a transgender child who, she said, left school after teachers objected to the child growing long hair.

Ms. Menon said it took four years and several hearings to decide her complaint, only for the new order to undermine that decision. She said she would challenge the order in the High Court.

Questions have also been raised about the procedure followed in issuing the order. Reports said neither the petitioners nor the government officials named as respondents were heard before the decision was made. Mr. Wilson defended the process, saying there was no need to hear them because he had relied on three High Court judgments and the Kerala Service Rules.

The respondents in the case were the Director of General Education, Director of Local Self-Government, Director General of Police and Director of the Health department. Reports said none was served notice or heard before the order was issued.

“We cannot afford to allow our children bring ganja and drugs to school, and let their bags go unchecked,” Mr. Wilson said. He added that bag or body searches must not harm students’ dignity or self-respect.

Chairperson’s stand

The order has also raised concerns within the Commission. Acting chairperson Cicily Joseph said she was unaware of the decision and had not consented to it.

“Chairperson is the official spokesperson,” she said, declining to answer further questions. Commission members reportedly questioned why a decision affecting students across the State was taken by a single member instead of a full bench. The Commission’s public relations officer was also reportedly bypassed before the order reached the media and schoolteacher groups.

Teachers have welcomed the order, saying it gives them clearer authority to prevent harmful behaviour. But the need for discipline does not resolve concerns about due process, consistency or children’s rights.

“The Commission’s credibility depends on transparent procedures and decisions that uphold the rights it is meant to protect,” Ms. Menon said.

Published - October 28, 2026 07:00 am IST