Maintaining Beard By A Member Of Disciplined Force May Not Be Protected Under Article 25: Allahabad HC
📜 Constitutional Provision: Article 25
Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution guarantees:
“Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.”
Key Phrases:
"Subject to public order, morality and health" – meaning that this right is not absolute and can be regulated or restricted.
The State can limit religious freedoms if it affects discipline, public order, etc.
⚖️ Key Case: Virendra Kumar v. Union of India & Others (Allahabad HC)
Citation:
Virendra Kumar v. Union of India and Others, Writ-A No. 5036 of 2012, decided by the Allahabad High Court in 2016.
🧑⚖️ Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), sought to maintain a beard as a matter of religious practice (he was a Muslim).
CRPF regulations required clean-shaven appearance unless specific exemption was granted (such as for Sikhs, who have a recognized religious mandate to keep unshorn hair).
His request to keep a beard was rejected, and he challenged this rejection under Article 25, claiming violation of religious freedom.
🧾 Judgment Summary
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the disciplinary norms of the CRPF. Key observations:
1. Article 25 is not absolute
The Court reiterated that Article 25 is subject to public order and discipline.
Being a part of a disciplined force, an individual voluntarily accepts service conditions, including appearance norms.
Religious freedoms can be restricted in such contexts.
2. No essential religious practice
The Court observed that maintaining a beard is not an essential religious practice in Islam, unlike Sikhism, where unshorn hair is mandatory and integral.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, it stated that only essential religious practices are protected under Article 25.
🔍 Relevant Supreme Court Precedents Cited
1. Mohd. Zubair v. Union of India (SC)
The Supreme Court upheld similar reasoning regarding Muslim personnel in disciplined forces.
It ruled that the denial of permission to keep a beard did not violate Article 25, as it was not an essential religious practice.
2. Lt. Col. Sardar S.S. Dhillon v. Union of India (2004)
It was held that Sikhs have a special protection as keeping hair is core to their religion, while others do not have the same leeway.
3. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar (1958)
The SC held that not all religious practices are protected under Article 25 — only those that are essential to the religion.
🧠 Legal Principles Evolved
Essential Religious Practice Doctrine: Only those practices that are fundamental and integral to a religion are protected under Article 25.
Discipline in Armed/Uniformed Forces: Personal liberties, including religious expression, may be curtailed to maintain uniformity and discipline.
Different Treatment of Religions: The law recognizes differing obligations – e.g., Sikhs have a religious obligation to keep unshorn hair, Muslims do not have a similar codified requirement regarding beards.
🧾 Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court ruled that:
“Maintenance of a beard by a member of a disciplined force is not a protected right under Article 25 of the Constitution if it conflicts with service regulations requiring a uniform appearance.”
Thus, the judgment supports the principle that uniformity and discipline in forces override non-essential personal religious practices, and service rules take precedence over religious preferences unless they are integral to the religion.
RELATED Blog
0 comments