What does the court ruling against the right to pray mean for religious practices in schools?

A Muslim student has lost a High Court challenge against her school’s ban on prayer rituals. Michaela Community School in Brent was taken to court by the girl over the policy, which she argued interfered with her right to practise her religion and amounted to discrimination against Muslims.

The non-faith state secondary school argued that its “team ethos” means that the interests of the school community take precedence over the needs of the individual. According to Katharine Birbalsingh, the headteacher, it also involves “aggressively” promoting integration between pupils from different faiths, cultures and ethnic backgrounds while they are at school, as well as minimising the social distinctions between them.

The school has 700 pupils from a diverse range of backgrounds, about half of whom are Muslim. The pupil who brought the case against the school has her anonymity protected because she is under 18.

Mr Justice Linden found that the school’s policy of preventing pupils from praying in the playground during their lunch break did not amount to interference with the pupil’s right to freedom to manifest her religious beliefs, which is protected under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

He said, in his 80-page judgment: “The claimant at the very least impliedly accepted, when she enrolled at the school, that she would be subject to restrictions on her ability to manifest her religion.”

The school argued, and the judge accepted, that the pupil “chose a secular school which she knew to have a strict behavioural regime and she is free to transfer to a school which would permit her to pray if she wishes to do so”.

The judge also found against the pupil in her second claim, that the school’s policy amounted to indirect discrimination against Muslims. He concluded: “The disadvantage to Muslim pupils at the school caused by the [policy] is in my view outweighed by the aims which it seeks to promote in the interests of the school community as a whole, including Muslim pupils.”

France has always maintained a strict separation between religion and the state, which means that state schools are not allowed to promote any form of religious observance. Since 2004, religious signs and symbols have been banned in schools, including headscarves, kippahs and crosses.

However, this is very different from the UK, where a significant number of schools have a longstanding religious affiliation, especially with the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church.

The British legal tradition has always been an inconsistent patchwork, with some Church schools – and, more recently, Islamic schools – allowed to select a proportion of their pupils on religious grounds. According to the Fair Admissions Campaign, which wants all schools to be open to all children regardless of religion, about one-fifth of British secondary schools are religiously selective.

Many more schools have a religious character, usually meaning that they hold some form of Christian assembly or merely have a history of religious foundation.

Michaela, however, is explicitly non-religious, and this court ruling has confirmed that it is entitled to defend that stance – essentially on the pragmatic grounds that if pupils or their parents do not like it, they can go elsewhere.

Perhaps what is most striking about this case is that the pupil, who is taking her GCSEs at the school, intends to remain at the school despite losing the case – and her mother plans to send another child there, too.