London, England - A 12-year-old Muslim girl has lost her High Court challenge to her school's ban on wearing the niqab full-face veil.
Lawyers for the girl and her father had argued that the ban was "irrational" and a breach of her human rights. But Mr Justice Silber rejected their plea for a judicial review. The girl's lawyers said after the judgment that she and her family were "bitterly disappointed" and were considering an appeal.
The judge was told at a recent hearing that the girl's three elder sisters all attended the same school - two of them under the present headteacher - and all wore the niqab.
The girl, referred to as X - she is protected by an anonymity order, as is her Buckinghamshire school - argued that the ban thwarted her "legitimate expectation" that she would be allowed to wear the niqab and breached her right to freedom of "thought, conscience and religion" under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The school told X last September, when she started wearing the niqab on reaching puberty, that it was not acceptable because teachers believed it would make communication and learning difficult. The veil covers all of the face except the eyes.
About 120 of the school's 1,300-plus pupils are Muslims, and up to 60 of them wear the hijab headscarf. It is thought that X is the only pupil demanding the right to wear the full-face veil when being taught by male teachers or when in the presence of other male staff.
The girl is currently receiving tuition at home and has been offered a place at a different, mixed school which permits the niqab, but she wants to go back to her original school.
The school contested the case and won the backing of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, which stresses that not all Muslims agree with the wearing of the niqab.
The girl's solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said after the ruling: "My client and her family are deeply disappointed with the decision. We believe there are a number of errors in the decision that have led to Mr Justice Silber reaching the wrong conclusions.
"It is surprising that he decided that the school had not infringed my client's freedom to manifest her religion given the fact that she entered the school on the understanding that the wearing of the veil was allowed when being taught by male teachers."