THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD TO RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE - MADRAS HIGH COURT'S LANDMARK RULING
Category: Constitutional law - Administrative affairs policy making
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
Background of the case-
On 5th June, the Madras High Court overturned the punishment of the Muslim constable for keeping a beard. While hearing the case of G Abdul Khadar Ibrahim, Justice L Victoria Gowri highlighted that the Madras Police Gazette from 1957 allowed Muslim police officers to keep trimmed and tidy beards. The court said that India is a land of diverse religions and customs. The Judge further highlighted that maintaining strict discipline within the police force is essential. However, it should not come at the cost of overpowering the religious customs and practices of a police personnel.
Fact of the case-
On 14th March 2009, Ibrahim was appointed as a Grade II Police constable and was promoted to Grade 1 Police Constable in 2019. On 7th November 2018, he applied for an earned leave from 9th November 2018 to 9th December 2018. He cited reason as pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. His leave was sanctioned by the authorities. After coming back, he applied to extend his leave stating his left leg was infected. Ibrahim attached a medical certificate to support his claims. However, the duty Sub-Inspector asked him to get permission from the Assistant Commissioner for the extension.
Legal provisions-
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Madras Police Gazette dated February 5, 1957
Constitutional Protection of Religious Freedom: Article 25
Disciplinary Procedures and Fair Enquiry
Disciplinary Action (2021)
During the investigation, the inquiry officer found Ibrahim guilty of the charges against him. On 23rd March 2021, the Deputy Commissioner of Police ordered a punishment. His increment was stopped for three years with cumulative effect. Ibrahim filed an appeal against the punishment after which it was reduced to two years without cumulative effect on 5th June 2021.
Contentions of Petitioner-
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1st Respondent without application of mind and appreciation of the standing orders had modified the punishment implicated on the petitioner by the 2nd respondent instead setting aside the same. The 1st respondent ought to have appreciated that the petitioner is a person belonging to the Muslim Religion who have religious faith in maintaining a beard throughout their lives and should have set aside the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent and pressed for allowing the writ petition.
Contentions of Respondent-
The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is a habitual trouble monger with his vicious disciplinary nature and this is not the first charge memo and he was Penalized with umpteen number of disciplinary actions within a period of Twelve (12) years in service and the appellate authority, that is, the 1stRespondent had properly applied his mind and has gracefully modified the Punishment from stoppage of increment for a period of three years with Cumulative effect to stoppage of increment for a period of two years without.
Judgment and Analysis-
Referring to an Official Memorandum issued in Madras Police Gazette dated 5th February 1957, Justice Gowri said that while permission to grow a beard could not be granted to non-Muslim officers, the Muslim officers in the police force were entitled to maintain a beard for their lifetime. The judge emphasised that a Muslim officer is allowed to keep a beard provided it is trimmed and tidy.
Furthermore, the court noted that the authorities failed to consider Ibrahim’s medical leave request on sympathetic grounds as he was suffering from an infection. Calling the disciplinary action against Ibrahim excessively harsh and disproportionate, the judge set aside the punishment.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide
WRITTEN BY: KOUSTAV GHOSH
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
