BANGKOK: Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has annulled a 1975 directive banning long hair and cosmetics in schools, ruling it unconstitutional. While schools may set their own rules, the verdict affirms students' rights and dignity.
The long-standing dream of many secondary school students may have come true on Wednesday (March 5) as the Supreme Administrative Court ruled to annul a directive from the Education Ministry that banned students from wearing long hair and cosmetics at school.
The court ruled that the ministerial directive, dated Jan 6, 1975, was issued based on Coup Order No. 132, dated 22 April 1927. However, it was found to violate Article 26 of the Constitution, leading to its immediate abrogation.
However, the verdict appears to leave room for school administrations to establish their own regulations regarding students' hairstyles and dress codes.
The lawsuit was brought forward by 13 students from a public school under the jurisdiction of the Education Ministry. The plaintiffs named the school management and the education minister as the first and second defendants, respectively.
The students argued that the Jan 6, 1975 directive was unconstitutional as it infringed upon their human dignity and personal freedom to make decisions regarding their own bodies. They claimed that the rule was demeaning and violated their fundamental rights.
In its ruling, the court emphasised that Article 26 of the Constitution prohibits laws that unreasonably restrict individual rights and liberties, particularly when they undermine human dignity.
Additionally, the court deemed the 1975 directive outdated and unsuitable for the current social context.
It also highlighted that the rule was unnecessary, as Article 64 of the Child Protection Act (2013) already grants school administrations the authority to establish their own regulations regarding students’ attire to suit their identities and ages.
The issue of hairstyles and uniforms has been a point of contention between students and school authorities for many years.
School administrations often argue that short hair promotes discipline, while students counter that forced haircuts have no impact on academic performance but instead lead to public humiliation.
The court acknowledged that the original coup order and directive aimed to instil obedience in students towards their parents, teachers, and schools while fostering good behaviour.
However, it ruled that forcing secondary school students to wear extremely short hair or crew cuts was no longer appropriate for modern society and failed to consider the physical and identity development of adolescents aged 13 to 16 years.
Moreover, the court found that the directive conflicted with Article 26 of the Child Protection Act, which prohibits any action that causes physical or mental distress to children. - The Nation/ANN
