Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
MOHAMMED ZUBAIR CORPORAL NO. 781467-G – APPELLANT
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8643 OF 2009 With CIVIL APPEAL No. 8644 OF 2009
Decided On : 15-12-2016
(B) Constitution of India – Article 33 – Restriction on fundamental rights – India is a secular nation in which every religion must be treated with equality – In context of Armed Forces, which comprise of men and women following a multitude of faiths needs of secular India are accommodated by recognizing right of worship and by respecting religious beliefs – Overarching necessity of a Force which has been raised to protect nation is to maintain discipline – That is why Constitution in provisions of Article 33 stipulates that Parliament may by law determine to what extent fundamental rights conferred by Part III shall stand restricted or abrogated in relation inter alia to members of Armed Forces so as to ensure proper discharge of their duties and maintenance of discipline among them. (Para 6)
Facts of Case:
Appellant was enrolled as an Airman in Indian Air Force. Contrary to Air Force Regulations, he was found to have a beard while in service uniform. Appellant was instructed to shave off his beard. Appellant was eventually discharged from service under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of Air Force Rules 1969 on 1 September 1997.
Findings of Court:
We see no reason to take a view of the matter at variance with judgment under appeal. Appellant has been unable to establish that his case falls within ambit of Regulation 425(b). In the circumstances, Commanding Officer was acting within his jurisdiction in interest of maintaining discipline of Air Force. Appellant having been enrolled as a member of Air Force was necessarily required to abide by discipline of Force. Regulations and policies in regard to personal appearance are not intended to discriminate against religious beliefs nor do they have effect of doing so. Their object and purpose is to ensure uniformity, cohesiveness, discipline and order which are indispensable to Air Force, as indeed to every armed force of Union.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8644 OF 2009
The Appellant was enrolled as an Airman in the Indian Air Force on 19 December 2001. After enrolment he was sent for training and was assigned the trade of Workshop Fitter (B). On 1 September 2004 he was posted to 3 Base Repair Depot at Chandigarh. On 10 January 2005, the Appellant submitted an application seeking permission to keep a beard on religious grounds, since he is a Muslim. The Air Officer Commanding rejected the application on 1 February 2005 and the Appellant was informed on 9 February 2005 of the rejection, which was on the ground of the Air Headquarters’ Policy dated 24 February 2003. On 22 March 2005 the Appellant submitted another application to the Air Officer Commanding seeking reconsideration of the earlier decision. He was granted an interview with him on 10 June 2005, when he was informed of the necessity to maintain uniformity amongst Air Force personnel because of which his request had been rejected. The Air Officer Commanding, however, addressed a communication dated 23 June 2005 to the Headquarters Maintenance Command seeking a clarification on the legal issues raised by the Appellant. In the meantime on 20 June 2005 the Appellant proceeded on annual leave. When he returned on 1 August 2005, he was found to sport a beard. On 1 August 2005 he was informed by Wing Commander that contrary to Air Force Regulations, he was found to have a beard while in service uniform. The Appellant was instructed to shave off his beard and to report at 0700 hrs on 2 August 2005, failing which it was stated that "severe disciplinary action" would be initiated against him. The Appellant declined to shave off his beard. Since in the meantime a clarification had been sought from HQ -MC, he was permitted to grow a beard on a provisional basis until his earlier application was finalised. By a communication dated 26 August 2005 HQ-MC Nagpur, informed 3 BRD, AF that under the current policy of the Air Force (Area HQ/C 23406/24/PS) dated 24 February 2003 and 9 July 2003 an Airman was not permitted to have a beard on religious grounds. On receipt of this letter, the Appellant was directed to shave off his beard and informed that the provisional permission granted to him on 3 August 2005 was withdrawn.
2. On 17 September 2005 the Appellant filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court in which by an interim order dated 20 September 2005 a Single Judge stayed the operation of the Air Force order dated 5 September 2005. The Air force authorities moved the High Court for vacating the interim stay but the application was dismissed on 9 February 2006. A Special Leave Petition was filed before this Court which was disposed of on 28 September 2007 with a request to the High Court to dispose of the petition expeditiously. By an order of the High Court dated 14 July 2008 the writ petition was dismissed. A Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 31 July 2008. In the meantime, a notice to show cause was issued to the Appellant calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be discharged from service. In reply to the notice, the Appellant asserted his right to retain a beard. The Appellant was eventually discharged from service under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules 1969 on 1 September 1997.
3. In the writ proceedings before the High Court, which were instituted on 17 September 2005 the Appellant sought the following reliefs :
“a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of Annexure P-5 vide which the petitioner, a Muslim has been directed to shave his beard by 20.092005, the same (Annexure P-5) being illegal, without any sanction of law and in contravention of Regulation 425(b) of the Regulations of the Indian Air Force and policy letters dated 08.05.1980 and 10.08.1982 (Annexures P-1 and P-2);
With a further prayer that the operation of the impugned order (Annexure P-5) may kindly be stayed till
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
