In a significant ruling upholding religious freedom, the Madras High Court has quashed a disciplinary order against a Muslim police constable who was punished for maintaining a beard. The judgment, delivered by Justice L. Victoria Gowri on June 5, 2024, emphasizes the importance of respecting religious diversity in India’s police force.
The case, W.P.(MD).No.10399 of 2021, was filed by G. Abdul Khadar Ibrahim, a Grade I Police Constable, against the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Madurai City. The petitioner, represented by Mr. G. Karthick of Lajapathi Roy Associates, challenged the order C.No.D2(1)/PR98/2019/CPO.No.1006/2021 dated June 5, 2021, which had imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect.
Background of the Case
The controversy began when Ibrahim, appointed as a Grade II Police Constable in 2009 and promoted to Grade I in 2019, returned from a religious pilgrimage to Mecca and Madina in December 2018. Upon his return, he sought medical leave due to a leg infection. However, instead of granting leave, his superiors questioned his appearance and beard, leading to disciplinary proceedings.
Key Legal Issues
The case revolved around two main issues:
1. The right of Muslim police officers to maintain a beard as part of their religious practice.
2. The proportionality of the punishment imposed for alleged disciplinary violations.
Court’s Decision and Observations
Justice Victoria Gowri, in her ruling, made several important observations:
1. On Religious Freedom: The court highlighted the Madras Police Gazette dated February 5, 1957, which permits Muslim police officers to maintain a beard. Justice Gowri noted, “India being a land of diverse religions and customs, the beauty and uniqueness of the land vest in the diversity of the citizen’s beliefs and culture.”
2. On Disciplinary Action: The court found the punishment “shockingly disproportionate” and stated that the duty of maintaining discipline “does not permit the respondents to initiate punishment on employees belonging to the minority communities, particularly Muslims for maintaining a beard which they do throughout their lives by following the commandments of Prophet Mohammed.”
3. On Medical Leave: Regarding the charge of unauthorized leave, the court observed that “as far as count one in charge memo is concerned, the petitioner has sought for medical leave, in view of the infection suffered by him after returning from a long leave of 30 days, the respondents ought to have granted with consent.”
The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Police, directing them to pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.
Also Read
Mr. J. John Rajadurai, the Government Advocate representing the respondents, argued that the petitioner had a history of disciplinary issues. However, the court’s decision prioritized the protection of religious practices over these claims.
