Date of Judgement:
12th August 2021
Coram:
Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Parties:
Petitioner: P.N.O. 052150337 Mohd. Farman
Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principle Secretary Home, Lucknow & Ors.
Subject
The Judgement analyzed the application of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution in the instant case. It also looked into the scope and applicability of the guidelines issued with respect to the uniform and appearance of the members of a disciplined force.
Overview
- In a circular dated 26th October 2020, the Director-General of Police, U.P. issued guidelines with respect to the uniform and appearance of the members of the disciplined force. One of the guidelines was to not have a beard, and the petitioner, irrespective of specific directions, failed to adhere to it.
- The petitioner submitted an application stating that he had maintained his beard according to the tenets of the Muslim Religion, however, the same was rejected on 13th November 2020. Consequently, he was suspended by an order dated 5th November 2020.
- The petitioner had filed two writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court. The first petition condemned the guidelines and consequent actions of the authorities, whereas, the second petition assailed the charge sheet dated 29th July 2021.
- It was submitted that the conduct of the petitioner would not come under the purview of misconduct to attract a departmental inquiry, and therefore, the charge sheet ought not to have been filed.
- The petitioner further argued that the reason for maintaining his beard was due to his religious belief that is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. Therefore, any action in this respect would be violative of the said Article.
- The Respondents, on the other hand, contended that the second writ petition was not maintainable on account of its pre-matureness, and therefore, the Court should not interfere with such charge-sheet or show cause notice.
Issues Involved
- Whether the right to maintain a beard is protected under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution?
- Whether a writ petition can be filed assailing a charge-sheet or show cause notice?
- Whether the guidelines issued by the Director-General of Police, UP, through a Circular dated 26th October 2020 is invalid?
Important Provisions
It states that all persons are entitled to the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, however, the same is subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
The second clause states that no provision in this article should affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law with respect to the regulation or restriction of any relevant activity which may be associated with religious practice; or the provision of any social welfare and reform. It also permits the wearing and carrying of Kirpans (for Sikhs) under its scope.
Judgment Analysis
- The Learned Judge opined that there was infirmity or illegality in the charge-sheet dated 29.07.2021 issued against the petitioner. (Paragraph No. 28)
- It was also opined that members of the disciplined force must strictly follow the guidelines prescribed, and therefore non-cutting of the beard is not only a wrong behavior but also a misdemeanor, misdeed, and delinquency of the petitioner. The Court further stated, “the petitioner’s misconduct/misdeed shall be examined by the Inquiry Officer during the course of inquiry, strictly in accordance with law by affording him an opportunity of hearing on that no observations of this Court are required.” (Paragraph No. 22)
- Article 25 of the Constitution is not absolute and has inbuilt restrictions, hence the right of maintaining a beard may not be protected under it. “Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, therefore, having beard by a member of disciplined force may not be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, Article 25 of the Constitution of India does not confer absolute right in this regard, all the rights have to be viewed in the context and letter and spirit in which they have framed under the Constitution. As a matter of fact, rights guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India have inbuilt restrictions.” (Paragraph No. 23)
With these observations, the High Court dismissed both the writ petitions and directed the inquiry department to conduct the inquiry against the petitioner and pass the order in accordance with the law.
Conclusion
The case examines the extent to which one can utilize his/her right to religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. As already seen in various discussions, no right under the Indian Constitution is absolute, and Article 25 is no exception. This has been rightly pointed out by Justice Rajesh Chauhan in this case. It was his view that a practice that is followed, indiscriminately, for more than 3 decades cannot be simply evaded on religious grounds. As rightly stated in the Article itself, one’s enjoyment of religion is confined to public order, morality, and health, and therefore it is not absolute. Though it is difficult to interpret the exact restrictions therein by its wordings alone, yet the same cannot be ignored either.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
