Can Muslim Police Personnel Claim Right To Keep Beard As Religious Practice? Supreme Court To Consider

The Supreme Court has listed for hearing an appeal which raises the issue whether the suspension of a Muslim police personnel for keeping a beard is violative of the fundamental right to practice religion under Article 25

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra agreed to examine the said issue raised by a Muslim constable of State Reserve Police Force, Maharashtra (SRPF) who was suspended for keeping a beard against the Bombay Police Manual of 1951.

"This is an important issue of the Constitution. This has to be argued. We will list the matter for hearing on a non-miscellaneous day". The CJI remarked.

The Counsel for the petitioner has informed the court that the present civil appeal was previously unresolved during the special Lok Adalat session of the Apex Court.

It may be noted that on an earlier occasion in 2017, the petitioner approached the Top Court against the Bombay High Court order of 2012 which upheld the decision of the State to suspend him for keeping the beard.

The bench of CJI JS Khehar and Justices DY Chandrachud and SK Kaul heard the matter and offered the petitioner to revoke his suspension if he agreed to shave his beard. The petitioner however refused to accept the condition.

In 2021, the Allahabad High Court while deciding a similar issue of suspension over keeping of beard by a Muslim constable, observed that having a beard by a member of disciplined force may not be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

Reference was made by the HC to the Supreme Court's judgment in Mohammed Zubair Corporal No. 781467-G vs. Union of India and others [reported in (2017) 2 SCC 115], which held that a Muslim air force officer can't claim the right to sport a beard. The Court observed in that case that the petitioner could not establish as to whether there is any specific mandate in Islam that prohibits the cutting of hairs or shaving the facial hairs.

Order Of The Bombay High Court

The genesis of the matter springs from the order of October 9, 2012 passed by the State Reserve Police Force of Maharashtra (SRPF) cancelling an earlier permission granted to the petitioner for keeping his beard for certain months in line with his Islamic Faith. The petitioner challenged this before the Bombay High Court as being violative of his fundamental right to practice religion under Article 25 and 26.

The State had argued that since the petitioner is constable in the SRPF, he is therefore governed by the rules and regulations of the Bombay Police Manual 1951 which doesn't permit him to keep a beard throughout his tenure of service. Additionally, it was pointed out that the cancellation of permission was done by the orders of the Home Department and The DGP of Mumbai which cannot be flouted.

The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner was unable to establish that keeping a beard was fundamental tenet of Islam which could not be done away with.

"The learned counsel for the petitioner could not place before us any piece of evidence demonstrating that keeping beard is a funda- mental tenet of Islam or the right of the petitioner to keep beard having any basis under any statutory legislation or guidelines of binding nature."

The Court observed that in light of the reasonable restrictions under Article 25, the right to keep a beard cannot be consider as an absolute right for the petitioner. The Court stressed that the maintenance of a secular nature of the police force has to be adhered to when considering reasonable restrictions.

"8. The role of Police has to be appreciated in judging the restrictions governing the force. Law enforcement rests appreciably on the po- lice. It must have a secular image and cannot lend itself to denomi- national nuances or overtones, more so, when national integration and secular concepts should be in the forefront. A 'uniformed force' which connotes a superior discipline cannot don sectarian appear- ances as Hindus, Muslims and such like. "The Court should take a common sense view and be actuated by considerations of practical necessary" (Adelaide Co. v. Common Wealth, 67 CLR 116 - Latham C.J) In situations like communal riots, identifiability of police force in terms of their religious denominations, will defeat the object of policing itself."

Case Details : ZAHIRODDIN SHAMSODDIN BEDADE vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA MOHE MINISTRY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY C.A. No. 000435 / 2015