An important legal test case began today into the rights of devout Muslims to wear traditional head-to-toe garments in the classroom.

Cherie Booth QC told the Court of Appeal in London that a school had behaved unlawfully by barring Shabina Begum, 15, from the classroom. She said the case involved "fundamental issues" about the nature and interpretation of Ms Begum’s rights to education and freedom to practise her religion.

Ms Begum sat at the back of the court wearing the jilbab covered by a cardigan, as the prime minister's wife opened the case on her behalf.

"Her rights to manifest her religious beliefs should be respected," said Ms Booth.

Ms Begum, whose father and mother are both dead, attended the "highly successful" 1,000-pupil Denbigh High School in Luton, Beds, where 79 per cent of students are Muslims, from the age of 12.

At first she consented to wear the authorised school uniform of shalwar kameez - tunic and trousers - but in September 2002, she and her brother, Shuweb Rahman, informed the assistant headteacher Stuart Moore that she would wear it no longer, preferring instead to wear a full length robe and headscarf. She was sent home from school.

She applied to court for a judicial review of the school's decision on human rights grounds.

Six months ago, High Court judge Mr Justice Bennett dismissed the girl’s case, ruling that she had failed to show that the school had excluded her or breached her human rights.

He said in his ruling that the school was entitled to limit Muslim students to wearing the shalwar kameez. The High Court judge added that Ms Begum chose not to return to Denbigh, knowing that her refusal to wear the shalwar kameez meant she was unlikely to be allowed to attend. She has received little formal education for two years.

The uniform policy was necessary "to protect the rights and freedoms of others" who did not want to be like Shabina and wear a jilbab - a headscarf and flowing robe from head to toe, he said.

The Muslim Council of Britain has described the High Court decision as "very worrying and objectionable".

Appealing against the ruling, Miss Booth said today that the judgment of Mr Justice Bennett effectively meant that the school was entitled to "pick and choose" which religious beliefs it accepted. She said: "The school is saying it is not willing to accept your particular religious beliefs."

Miss Booth said this was not a Race Relations Act case, but that either countries (such as Switzerland and France) can impose secular dress for everyone in school, or they can respect diversity and allow schoolchildren to express their religious beliefs.

"I say our policy is to respect diversity, and it is not for the public authority to judge which beliefs are more valid than others," she said.

To win the appeal, it will have to be proved that Miss Begum is being excluded from school and being denied her "right to education and to manifest her religious beliefs".

Today’s appeal against the test case ruling has important implications for multi-faith schools across the country, and echoes a controversy in France, where politicians have voted for a ban on all "ostensible religious symbols" in schools, including the hijab, the headscarf worn by Muslim girls and women.

Miss Booth said the jilbab was not considered to be an extreme form of dress code observance, but was recognised by many Muslims as a requirement for their religion.

She said: "The question of modestly dressed females is not a quirky culture thing, it is recognised as a genuine manifestation of religious belief."

Lord Justice Brooks, the vice president of the Court of Appeal Civil Division, said the case involved one particular race and culture in a multi-cultural society.

He asked whether any child who holds a particular belief sincerely should be able to ignore school uniform codes. He asked: "How do you cope with that?"

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Anne Darwin's performance of a lifetime
• Renaissance for canals as new boaters come aboard
• Case study: forced to marry a cousin at 17