News about the Sarika Singh case: Difference between revisions

From SikhiWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(New page: thumb|300px|right|{{cs|Sarika Singh 14, wearing the [[Kara (religious bangle) that led to her exclusion from school (''photo: www.independent.co.uk'')}}]]...)
 
 
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 33: Line 33:


==In the News==
==In the News==
{{p|Image:Anna Fairclough.jpg|Anna Fairclough, Liberty’s Legal Officer}}
===Judgement 29-July-2008===
===Judgement 29-July-2008===
====The Press Association====
====The Press Association====
Line 70: Line 71:


===Other News===
===Other News===
{{pl|File:KaraSikh.jpg|Sarika Singh after her victory outside the Royal Courts of Justice, London}}
====Telegraph====
====Telegraph====
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2143805/Sikh-girl-takes-her-fight-to-wear-religious-bracelet-at-school-to-the-High-Court.html  '''17 June 2008''': Sikh girl takes her fight to wear religious bracelet at school to the High Court] telegraph.co.uk
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2143805/Sikh-girl-takes-her-fight-to-wear-religious-bracelet-at-school-to-the-High-Court.html  '''17 June 2008''': Sikh girl takes her fight to wear religious bracelet at school to the High Court] telegraph.co.uk
Line 120: Line 123:


===Bangle case cost school £76,000===
===Bangle case cost school £76,000===
{{p|Image:Uk-mp-Ann-Clwyd.Jpeg|Ann Clwyd is a British Labour MP}}
{{p|Image:Uk-mp-Ann-Clwyd.Jpeg|{{w|Ann Clwyd}} is a British Labour MP}}


British Labour MP {{w|Ann Clwyd}} has strongly criticised school governors after it emerged that their decision to ban a [[Sikh]] pupil, [[Sarika Singh]] from wearing a religious bracelet called a [[Kara]] will cost the school more than £76,000 ($100,000). Further, it is understood that the "wasted" legal costs estimated in the region of £50,000 incurred by the [http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ human rights group Liberty] in [http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/high-court-sikh-schoolgirl.shtml defending the rights of the Sikh pupil] will also need to be paid by the school.
British Labour MP {{w|Ann Clwyd}} has strongly criticised school governors after it emerged that their decision to ban a [[Sikh]] pupil, [[Sarika Singh]] from wearing a religious bracelet called a [[Kara]] will cost the school more than £76,000 ($100,000). Further, it is understood that the "wasted" legal costs estimated in the region of £50,000 incurred by the [http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ human rights group Liberty] in [http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/high-court-sikh-schoolgirl.shtml defending the rights of the Sikh pupil] will also need to be paid by the school.
Line 127: Line 130:


This now begs the question of whether school governor acted in a reasonable and fair manner considering the intense criticism of their action at the time. ''Read the news report......''
This now begs the question of whether school governor acted in a reasonable and fair manner considering the intense criticism of their action at the time. ''Read the news report......''
----
* [http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1937151.ece '''''The Sun'' - "Bracelet case bill is £76,000"''']  November 17, 2008
A SCHOOL that banned a [[Sikh]] girl from wearing a religious bracelet has landed a £76,000 legal bill.
[[Sarika Watkins-Singh]], 15, won a High Court case after being suspended over the silver [[Kara bangle]], which the school said broke its jewellery rules.
Aberdare Girls School in South Wales may now have to pay her costs too.
Yesterday local Labour MP {{w|Ann Clwyd}} blasted governors for ''“wasting taxpayers’ money”''. She said: ''“I told them they’d lose.”''


----
----
[http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/11/15/bangle-case-cost-school-76-000-91466-22262464/ '''Western Mail, Nov 15 2008 by Martin Shipton''']
* [http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/11/15/bangle-case-cost-school-76-000-91466-22262464/ '''Western Mail, by Martin Shipton'''] Nov 15 2008


AN MP has strongly criticised school governors after it emerged that their decision to ban a [[Sikh]] pupil from wearing a [[kara|religious bracelet]] will cost the school more than £76,000.
AN MP has strongly criticised school governors after it emerged that their decision to ban a [[Sikh]] pupil from wearing a [[kara|religious bracelet]] will cost the school more than £76,000.
Line 151: Line 164:
A spokeswoman for Rhondda Cynon Taf Council, the local education authority, said: ''“This is a matter entirely for the school, which is responsible for its own budget.”''
A spokeswoman for Rhondda Cynon Taf Council, the local education authority, said: ''“This is a matter entirely for the school, which is responsible for its own budget.”''


'''Related articles'''
==The school face £200,000 legal bill==
* [[MP defends student’s Sikh religious views|'''MP defends student’s Sikh religious views''']]
{{p|File:32Sarika001.jpg|Sikh student, Sarika Watkins-Singh}}
* [[Liberty files legal challenge for Sarika '''High Court to determine if Sikh schoolgirl’s exclusion is illegal''']]
'''[http://www.emgonline.co.uk/news.php?news=4693 A school that discriminated against a Sikh school girl face £200,000 legal bill]''' April 20, 2009


==Guidance provided by the Welsh Assebley==
Brave Sikh school Sarika Watkins-Singh eventually won her desire to wear her Kara in July 2008, she was dismissed from school, then faced months of studying alone, but eventually High Court supported her rights.


On 18 January 2008, the Welsh Assembly Government published a guidance document for governing bodies and headteachers on issues relating to implementing or changing a school uniform and appearance policy. ([http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/publications/guidance/uniform-appearance?lang=en Download here])
Now her school faces legal bills of £200,000, it is also believe Sarika may have a cheque from the education bosses, who have been ordered to pay the student banned from wearing the Sikh Kara bangle damages believed to be at least five figures.


Among other things, it provides the following:
Aberdare Girls’ School, in Aberdare, Wales, is reeling from the bill, which includes an invoice from human rights group Liberty, who brought the case on behalf of Sarika Watkins-Singh, 15.


* ensuring that due regard is given to securing equality of treatment between boys and girls and for pupils from different ethnic and religious backgrounds and disabled pupils in relation to school uniform and appearance policies;
The school’s own legal fees top £76,000. The school denied any racial discrimination and Ms Watkins-Singh spent nine weeks being taught in isolation because the bangle was against its uniform policy.
* cost;
* practical considerations involved in introducing or changing school uniform and appearance policies;
* consultation with parents and pupils.


1.2 The Welsh Assembly Government strongly encourages governing bodies to have a school uniform (or dress) and appearance code as it:
Miss Watkins-Singh won the case after a three-day hearing last June, in which her exclusion was ruled to be “unlawful”.
* provides a sense of identity and can instil pride;
* can support positive behaviour and school discipline;
* can ensure pupils dress appropriately for learning activity;
* can remove peer pressure to dress in ‘designer’ fashions;
* can encourage cohesion between different groups of pupils;
* can ensure pupils of all races and backgrounds feel included;
* can help reduce inequalities between pupils and some triggers for bullying;
* can help identify truants;
* can assist identification of strangers on school premises; and
* it can support and promote the ethos of the school.


2.1 In formulating school uniform and appearance policies, a school governing body needs to consider its obligations not to discriminate unlawfully on the grounds of sex, race, religion or belief and disability.
The school, with an annual budget of around £2.2million, has already paid £60,000 to Liberty but disputes an extra bill of £80,000, the Daily Express reported


'''Discrimination on the Grounds of Race/Religious Belief'''
TaxPayers’ Alliance spokesman Mark Wallace said: “This case means a headache for the taxpayer who will ultimately be forced to stump up.”


2.6 School governing bodies should consider their uniform and appearance policies in the context of their race equality policy; their obligation to promote equality of opportunity between pupils of different racial groups; and the requirement to assess the impact of school policies on pupils drawn from different racial groups. A governing body could be regarded as discriminating if it did not accommodate religious needs concerning dress. This could either amount to unlawful race discrimination (for example, because a high proportion of the followers of a particular faith come from one or more minority racial groups and could not comply with a particular uniform requirement), or it could amount to a breach of the governing body’s duties under the Human Rights Act 1998 or the Equality Act 2006.
He added: “This just emphasises the need for schools to be given full control of their rules and regimes without risk of politically correct enforcement. The problem in this case arose because of interference from other parties.”


2.7 The Human Rights Act 1998 protects the right to “manifest one’s religion or beliefs”. Various religions require conformity to a particular dress code, or to outwardly manifest their belief. Some religions require that specific religious artefacts are worn or their followers dress in a particular way.
Ms Watkins-Singh’s case caused controversy last year when it emerged that she had been excluded from school.


2.8 It may be possible for many religious requirements to be met within school uniform and appearance policies and school governing bodies should act reasonably in accommodating religious requirements. Once the uniform and appearance policy has been agreed, governing bodies should consider carefully, any request that is made to vary the policy to meet the needs of any individual pupil to accommodate their religion or belief.
In November, it was thought that the legal bill would amount to the school’s £76,000 costs.


But now campaigners say the school should never have taken the battle to the High Court.”


2.9 However, governing bodies should consider the concerns of any groups about the proposed policy, and whether the proposed policy amounts to an interference with the right to manifest a religion or belief, and whether it is discriminatory. The school will need to weigh up the concerns of different groups and it might not be practical to accommodate fully the concerns of all groups. For example, groups of children drawn from different parts of the same religious community may each have differing requirements, requiring several variations of school uniform if each were accommodated in full, which would not be practical.
2.10 In fulfilling their obligations, governing bodies may have to balance the rights of individual pupils against the best interests of the school community as a whole. Where schools have good reasons for restricting an individual’s freedom, then the restriction of an individual’s rights to manifest their religion may be justified. For example:
* to ensure the effective delivery of teaching and learning;
* the promotion of cohesion and good order in a school;
* the prevention of bullying; or
* genuine health and safety or security reasons;


'''Jewellery'''


3.11 Governing bodies may wish to consider the wearing of jewellery as part of school uniform and appearance policies and specify items of jewellery that pupils may wear. There are also health and safety issues to consider. It may be reasonable for a governing body to ban pupils from wearing jewellery where it considers that this poses a risk of injury (e.g. in PE lessons, where pupils should be asked to remove earrings or tape them), or where it considers that wearing jewellery to school might place a pupil at increased risk of bullying or harassment.
'''Race Relations Act 1976'''
Section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 places a general duty on schools to promote race equality. This means schools must aim, in the exercise of their functions, to:
* eliminate unlawful racial discrimination;
* promote equality of opportunity; and
* promote good relations between people of different racial groups.
Governing bodies must have a race equality policy; and governing bodies must address annually the impact of their policies on race relations.
The Act makes it unlawful to discriminate directly or indirectly against someone on racial grounds. Racial discrimination is described in the Act as where a person treats one person less favourably than another on racial grounds or where a requirement or condition – such as a school rule – which is applied or would apply to persons of a different racial group:
* is such that the proportion of persons who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that racial group who can comply with it; and
* which cannot be shown to be justifiable irrespective of the colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins of the person to whom it is applied; and
* which is to the detriment of the person because he/she cannot comply with it.
A school in its rules for uniform and appearance must not treat one racial group more favourably than another.
'''Human Rights Act 1998'''
Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states that the enjoyment of the other rights and freedoms set out must be secured without discrimination on any grounds. These grounds include sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. Relevant rights and freedoms include:
* Article 8 (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life) which covers the ability of the individual to develop his or her personality in society;
* Article 9 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion) which covers the right to demonstrate one’s religion, including by complying with the dress requirements of one’s religion; and
* Article 10 (Freedom of Expression), which covers self-expression through dress.
Limitations can be placed on these rights e.g. by a school policy on uniform or appearance. However, the policy must aim to further legitimate interests such as public safety, public order, health or morals, or to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The potential benefits of having school uniform and appearance policies, as set out in paragraph 1.2 above, relate to these interests. But as school uniform or appearance policies may constitute a limitation on rights, it should be set out clearly in a document which is accessible to pupils and parents, and available in languages they understand, and should include the consequences of not complying with any policy.
'''Equality Act 2006'''
Section 49 of the Equality Act 2006 must be read in conjunction with section 44 and 45.
Section 44 defines what is meant by religion or belief
44 Religion and belief
(a) “religion” means any religion,
(b) “belief” means any religious or philosophical belief,
(c) a reference to religion includes a reference to lack of religion, and
(d) a reference to belief includes a reference to lack of belief.
Section 45 defines what is meant by discrimination
Discrimination is when
(1) A person (“A”) discriminates against another (“B”) for the purposes of this Part
This means in the context of Education if on grounds of the religion or belief of B or of any other person except A (whether or not it is also A’s religion or belief) A treats B less favourably than
he treats or would treat others (in cases where there is no material difference in
the relevant circumstances).
(2) In subsection (1) a reference to a person’s religion or belief includes a reference
to a religion or belief to which he is thought to belong or subscribe.
(3) A person (“A”) discriminates against another (“B”) for the purposes of this Part
if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice—
*(a) which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of B’s religion
or belief,
*(b) which puts persons of B’s religion or belief at a disadvantage compared
to some or all others (where there is no material difference in the
relevant circumstances),
*(c) which puts B at a disadvantage compared to some or all persons who
are not of his religion or belief (where there is no material difference in
the relevant circumstances), and
*(d) which A cannot reasonably justify by reference to matters other than
B’s religion or belief.
(4) A person (“A”) discriminates against another (“B”) if A treats B less favourably
than he treats or would treat another and does so by reason of the fact that, or
by reason of A’s knowledge or suspicion that, B—
*(a) has brought or intended to bring, or intends to bring, proceedings
under this Part,
*(b) has given or intended to give, or intends to give, evidence in
proceedings under this Part,
*(c) has provided or intended to provide, or intends to provide, information
in connection with proceedings under this Part,
*(d) has done or intended to do, or intends to do, any other thing under or
in connection with this Part, or
*(e) has alleged or intended to allege, or intends to allege, that a person
contravened this Part.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply where A’s treatment of B relates to B’s making
or intending to make, not in good faith, a false allegation.
Section 49 of the Equality Act 2006 sets out provisions in relation to schools. It
is unlawful in general for maintained schools to discriminate against a person on the grounds of that person’s religion or belief in the following ways:
* the terms on which it offers to admit him/her as a pupil;
* by refusing to accept an application to admit him/her as a pupil; or
* where he/she is a pupil of the establishment:
> in the way in which it affords him/her access to any benefit, facility or service;
> by refusing him/her access to a benefit, facility or service;
> by excluding him/her from the establishment; or
> by subjecting him/her to any other detriment.
The Equality Act 2006 also amended the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, creating a general gender equality duty which requires public bodies to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between men and women and to eliminate unlawful sex discrimination and harassment.
The Equality Act 2006 also outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of education and in the exercise of public functions.
*The Religious Clothing summary highlights the following as requirements of a Sikh:
'''Sikhism'''
In general modest dress is a requirement. All initiated Sikhs wear the five ‘K’ symbols as a sign of their initiation, generally at puberty, into the Sikh community. Male Sikhs wear a turban, the removal of which is unacceptable in their religion, and grow a beard. The five ‘K’ symbols are: ‘kesh’ (long hair which is not cut); ‘kara’ (a steel bracelet); ‘kirpan’ (a small sword); ‘kangha’ (a wooden comb); and ‘kach’ (long underpants).
The document also sets out out the current position regarding financial assistance for parents towards the cost of purchasing school uniform.
It says that the Assembly Government '''does not consider exclusion''' to be "an appropriate response" to breaches of school uniform policies.


'''Related articles'''
* [[MP defends student’s Sikh religious views|'''MP defends student’s Sikh religious views''']]
* [[Liberty files legal challenge for Sarika|'''High Court to determine if Sikh schoolgirl’s exclusion is illegal''']]


==See also==
==See also==


* [[Sarika Singh]]
* [[Liberty files legal challenge for Sarika]]
* [[MP defends student’s Sikh religious views]]
* [[The right to wear the 5Ks]]
* [[The right to wear the 5Ks]]
* [[Mandla v Dowell Lee]]
* [[Mandla v Dowell Lee]]

Latest revision as of 18:08, 26 April 2009

Sarika Singh 14, wearing the Kara (religious bangle) that led to her exclusion from school (photo: www.independent.co.uk)

Anna Fairclough: The lessons all schools need to learn from this judgment The Independent Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Sarika Watkins-Singh, a 14- year-old Welsh-Punjabi Sikh, was forbidden from wearing her kara, a 5mm-wide plain steel bangle, to her state school. Because of her decision to continue wearing it, she was taught in complete segregation from other pupils for almost two months, banned from speaking to friends at school and even escorted to the toilet by a teacher, who waited outside.

Sarika won her case convincingly and hopefully schools will take note of the core messages in the judgment. The first of these is about individual freedom and the rights of minorities. You need a very good reason to interfere with the rights of individuals to express their identity and none was forthcoming in this case. Second, one size does not fit all. To achieve true equality, people in different situations sometimes have to be treated differently. Third, schools should seek to prevent racism by teaching students to value and respect difference, not by requiring minority groups to conform to the mainstream model.

This judgment does not mean all groups everywhere are always permitted to wear items representing their faith. But, hopefully, this will bring to a halt the perception that all religious items can lawfully be banned. Nor does this judgment only apply to Sikhs, who are recognised in law as a racial, as well as a religious group. Since the advent of the Equality Act 2006, all religions are protected in exactly the same way.

by Anna Fairclough, Liberty's legal officer, represented the Singhs

Court Case

Sarika Singh - Court Case starts today (17 June 2008) in London
at Royal Court of Justice, Strand, LONDON WC2A 2LL COURT 27, FOR HEARING - CO/11435/2007

  • Before MR JUSTICE SILBER, Tuesday 17 June, 2008, At half past 10. The case is expected to last for 3 days

The Queen on the application of S v Governing Body Of Aberdare Girls School

A simple steel wrist bangle called a Kara by Sikhs meant as much to schoolgirl Sarika Watkins-Singh as it did to England spin bowler Monty Panesar, a High Court judge heard today.

"It was one of the symbols of their Sikh faith and not a piece of jewellery", said lawyers for 14-year-old Sarika at the start of a hearing to decide whether a school was justified in banning her from attending classes while she insisted on wearing the bracelet.

Lawyers for the girl told the High Court that she was a victim of unlawful discrimination when she was excluded from Aberdare Girls' School in south Wales last November after refusing to remove the simple steel bracelet.

Mr Justice Silber said he would like to see one of the bangles - known as the Kara - at some point during the hearing, which is set for three days.

In the meantime, Sarika's counsel, Helen Mountfield, referred the judge to a photograph of Panesar wearing the Kara as one of the symbols of the Sikh faith. Read more....

In the News

Anna Fairclough, Liberty’s Legal Officer

Judgement 29-July-2008

The Press Association

Girl wins religious bangle case at 11.00am London time 29 July 2008 - The Press Association

A Sikh teenager excluded from school for breaking a "no jewellery" rule by refusing to remove a wrist bangle which is central to her faith was a victim of unlawful discrimination, a judge ruled.

As a result of the judgment in the High Court, Sarika Watkins-Singh, 14, will be returning to Aberdare Girls' School in South Wales in September - wearing the Kara, a slim steel bracelet.

Her lawyers had told Mr Justice Silber that the Kara was as important to her as it was to England spin bowler Monty Panesar, who has been pictured wearing the bangle.

Sarika, of mixed Welsh and Punjabi origin, of Cwmbach, near Aberdare, was at first taught in isolation and eventually excluded for refusing to take off the bangle in defiance of the school's policy, which prohibits the wearing of any jewellery other than a wrist watch and plain ear studs.

The judge declared that the school was guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.

After the judgment, Sarika's mother, Sinita, 38, said: "We are over the moon. It is just such a relief."

Afterwards, a spokeswoman for the family hailed it as a "common sense" judgment.

Sarika said: "I am overwhelmed by the outcome and it's marvellous to know that the long journey I've been on has finally come to an end. I'm so happy to know that no-one else will go through what me and my family have gone through." She added: "I just want to say that I am a proud Welsh and Punjabi Sikh girl."

Judgement: More News coverage

  • bbc.co.uk Sikh girl wins bangle law battle - see video report
  • telegraph.co.uk Sikh teenager wins bangle discrimination case - see video report
  • timesonline.co.uk Sarika Watkins-Singh wins right to wear bangle at school - see video report
  • dailymail.co.uk Sikh girl, 14, banned from school for wearing religious bangle wins High Court discrimination battle
  • guardian.co.uk Is the Sikh schoolgirl's bangle law a bungled one?
  • International Herald Tribune Sikh teen wins UK discrimination claim after exclusion from class over bracelet
  • indiatimes.com Welsh-Sikh teenager wins right to wear kada to school
  • AFP Sikh teen wins bangle court case against school

Other News

Sarika Singh after her victory outside the Royal Courts of Justice, London

Telegraph

17 June 2008: Sikh girl takes her fight to wear religious bracelet at school to the High Court telegraph.co.uk

Lawyers representing Sarika Singh, 14, are hoping the judge will rule that she was the victim of unlawful discrimination, in a case which could prove to be pivotal in the debate over religious dress in schools.

Aberdare Girls' School in south Wales insisted that Sakira take classes on her own for two months before finally excluding her last November after she refused to remove the small steel bangle, known as a Kara.

The school, at which Sarika was the only Sikh, does not permit jewellery other than wristwatches and plain ear studs. Read more ....

The Press Association

13 June 2008: Kara ban fight set for High Court

The mother of a teenage girl excluded from school for wearing a religious symbol said her education had suffered immensely as a result.

Sinita Singh's 14-year-old daughter, Sarika, has not attended Aberdare Girls' School in south Wales since being told last year she could not wear a bracelet known as a Kara. Her case will be heard at the High Court in London on Tuesday and is due to last three days.

Sarika enrolled at Mountain Ash Comprehensive School earlier this year, which is allowing her to wear the bracelet, and will stay there until the legal process is complete.

The family travelled to 10 Downing Street to hand in a petition which calls upon Prime Minister Gordon Brown to intervene in the matter "to show discrimination is totally unacceptable". Read more....

Court Hearing: 17-19 June 2008

17 June 2008

  • cbbcnews Row over girl's religious bangle
  • mailonsunday.co.uk Schoolgirl's court battle to wear Sikh bangle 'just like Monty Panesar'
  • Evening Post Breaking News: Wrist bangle is 'Symbol of Faith', High Court hears
  • guardian.co.uk Excluded Sikh schoolgirl takes bangle battle to high court
  • telegraph.co.uk Sikh girl takes her fight to wear religious bracelet at school to the High Court
  • AFP Sikh teen seeks discrimination ruling over bracelet

Before 17 June 2008

Bangle case cost school £76,000

Ann Clwyd is a British Labour MP

British Labour MP Ann Clwyd has strongly criticised school governors after it emerged that their decision to ban a Sikh pupil, Sarika Singh from wearing a religious bracelet called a Kara will cost the school more than £76,000 ($100,000). Further, it is understood that the "wasted" legal costs estimated in the region of £50,000 incurred by the human rights group Liberty in defending the rights of the Sikh pupil will also need to be paid by the school.

It estimated that this will bring the total bill to the school of £126,000 or $160,000. This money, which should have been spent on the education of the pupils at the school will now be diverted to pay for legal costs of an action by the school which was doomed from inception. How will this affect the education of the pupils at the school?

This now begs the question of whether school governor acted in a reasonable and fair manner considering the intense criticism of their action at the time. Read the news report......

A SCHOOL that banned a Sikh girl from wearing a religious bracelet has landed a £76,000 legal bill.

Sarika Watkins-Singh, 15, won a High Court case after being suspended over the silver Kara bangle, which the school said broke its jewellery rules.

Aberdare Girls School in South Wales may now have to pay her costs too.

Yesterday local Labour MP Ann Clwyd blasted governors for “wasting taxpayers’ money”. She said: “I told them they’d lose.”

AN MP has strongly criticised school governors after it emerged that their decision to ban a Sikh pupil from wearing a religious bracelet will cost the school more than £76,000.

Sarika Watkins-Singh, now 15, was suspended from Aberdare Girls’ School after insisting she should be allowed to wear a silver Kara bangle, one of the five symbols of Sikh identity.

The school argued she could not wear the bracelet because it contravened a ban on jewellery.

With the help of the human rights group Liberty, Sarika challenged the school’s decision and won a judicial review case in the High Court.

Now, following a Freedom of Information request by local Labour MP Ann Clwyd, it has emerged that the school’s legal fees came to £76,699.40. Having lost the case, the school will also have to pay Liberty’s legal costs, which are understood to be on top of that amount.

Ms Clwyd said: "I am very concerned about the waste of taxpayers’ money on a case which I and others told the governors they would lose. I knew from speaking to fellow Labour MPs representing areas like Wolverhampton, where there is a large Sikh population, that Sikhs are a protected minority under the Race Relations Act. There is an important case dating from 1983 that went to the House of Lords and confirmed Sikhs’ rights."

"I am afraid that I have not found the school at all co-operative in dealing with inquiries I have made about this matter."

“I do not know which budget the legal fees will be paid from.”

Ian Blake, who chairs the school’s governing body, did not respond to an e-mail we sent him and no-one else at the school was prepared to comment.

A spokeswoman for Rhondda Cynon Taf Council, the local education authority, said: “This is a matter entirely for the school, which is responsible for its own budget.”

The school face £200,000 legal bill

Sikh student, Sarika Watkins-Singh

A school that discriminated against a Sikh school girl face £200,000 legal bill April 20, 2009

Brave Sikh school Sarika Watkins-Singh eventually won her desire to wear her Kara in July 2008, she was dismissed from school, then faced months of studying alone, but eventually High Court supported her rights.

Now her school faces legal bills of £200,000, it is also believe Sarika may have a cheque from the education bosses, who have been ordered to pay the student banned from wearing the Sikh Kara bangle damages believed to be at least five figures.

Aberdare Girls’ School, in Aberdare, Wales, is reeling from the bill, which includes an invoice from human rights group Liberty, who brought the case on behalf of Sarika Watkins-Singh, 15.

The school’s own legal fees top £76,000. The school denied any racial discrimination and Ms Watkins-Singh spent nine weeks being taught in isolation because the bangle was against its uniform policy.

Miss Watkins-Singh won the case after a three-day hearing last June, in which her exclusion was ruled to be “unlawful”.

The school, with an annual budget of around £2.2million, has already paid £60,000 to Liberty but disputes an extra bill of £80,000, the Daily Express reported

TaxPayers’ Alliance spokesman Mark Wallace said: “This case means a headache for the taxpayer who will ultimately be forced to stump up.”

He added: “This just emphasises the need for schools to be given full control of their rules and regimes without risk of politically correct enforcement. The problem in this case arose because of interference from other parties.”

Ms Watkins-Singh’s case caused controversy last year when it emerged that she had been excluded from school.

In November, it was thought that the legal bill would amount to the school’s £76,000 costs.

But now campaigners say the school should never have taken the battle to the High Court.”



Related articles

See also

External links

Other Cases

  • unitedsikhs.org Belgian Court overturns ban on Sikh head-covering in school 01 July 2008
These articles deal with Sikh's Five ks

Kesh (uncut hair) -|- Kara (bangle) -|- Kanga (small comb) -|- Kachera (under garment) -|- Kirpan (sword)

Retrieved from "https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=News_about_the_Sarika_Singh_case&oldid=73886"