Mandla v Dowell-Lee
1982 United Kingdom legal case on racial discrimination
Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1982] UKHL 7 is a United Kingdom law case on racial discrimination. It held that Sikhs are to be considered an ethnic group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976.
Background
A Sikh boy was refused entry to Park Grove School, Birmingham by the headmaster because his father refused to make him stop wearing a dastar and cut his hair. The boy went to another school, but the father lodged a complaint with the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), which brought the case. Derry Irvine, a future Lord Chancellor, appeared for the CRE.
Judgment
Court of Appeal
The CRE lost in the Court of Appeal. Lord Denning, M. R. held the following:
The statute in section 3(1) contains a definition of a "racial group". It means a "group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins." That definition is very carefully framed. Most interesting is that it does not include religion or politics or culture. You can discriminate for or against Roman Catholics as much as you like without being in breach of the law. You can discriminate for or against Communists as much as you please, without being in breach of the law.
The public source identifies “Mandla v Dowell-Lee” as 1982 United Kingdom legal case on racial discrimination. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Mandla, Dowell-Lee and United.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Mandla v Dowell-Lee”, the useful work is to connect “1982 United Kingdom legal case on racial discrimination” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 22, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6748115. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1982 and 1976.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Mandla v Dowell-Lee”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Mandla v Dowell-Lee primary sources, Mandla v Dowell-Lee archive and Mandla research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Mandla v Dowell-Lee”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Mandla v Dowell-Lee” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.