The limitations of freedom of religion under Art.25, the need to balance religious practices with public order and social welfare, and the absence of an absolute right to disregard the rules of service based on religious beliefs.

1. This writ petition comes before us, on reference by a learned Single Judge.

2. The petitioner professes the faith of Islam; by profession he is a policeman.

The rules of his service prohibit the wearing of a beard. For two decades, he

lived under it without demur. Realisation then dawned on him, that to live

without a beard was contrary to the tenets of his faith. We do not know when. He

would only say, that by Ext. P1 dated 19-11-1986, he was directed by the 3rd

respondent to report for duty cleanly shaven.

3. By Ext. P2, he told the respondent that wearing a beard was an article of

faith, that it was not subject to discipline and that:

"Nobody can compel me to swerve from the Islamic faith".

He invited the attention of his superior to Bijoe Emmanual v. State (1986 KLT

1037) to say that he had a right to wear a beard. The 3rd respondent obviously

did not share the views of the petitioner, and issued Ext. P3. Apparently, the

petitioner turned the Nelson's eye on Ext. P3, and did not respond. By Ext. P4,

the 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to report for duty, calling attention

to S.14 and 17 of the Kerala Police Act.

4. The petitioner left matter at that, as far as the department was concerned,

and filed the writ petition. Counsel for petitioner urged three propositions to

contend that the directions in Exts. P1 and P4 were illegal. He submits that

wearing a beard is a basic tenet of Islam, that Art.25 of the Constitution of

India guarantees freedom of conscience, profession, practice and propagation of

religion which according to him includes the wearing of beard and thirdly, that

the law declared by the Supreme Court of India in Bijoe Emmanuel's case sanctions

practices such as this. The decision to the contra, in Mohammed Fast vs.

Superintendent of Police (1985 KLT 185), is no longer good law, according to

counsel.

5. According to the petitioner, Art.25 confers an absolute right in this regard.

We cannot assent to this view. The opening words of the Article recite that the

right of freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of

religion is subject to public order, morality and other provisions in Part.3,

including Art.19(2) to (6) empowering restrictions.

In Narendra Prasad v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1974 S C 2098), the Supreme Court

said:

"The founders of the Constitution left no doubt in expressly subjecting Art.25 to

other provisions of Part III".

In Ratilal v. State of Bombay (AIR 1954 SC 388), referring to Art.25, it is

stated:

"This is subject, in every case, to public order, health and morality reserves

the State's power to make laws providing for social reform and social welfare

even though they might interfere with religious practices"

Similarly, in State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (AIR 1952 Bombay 84), Chagla,

C.J. stated the law:

"A sharp distinction must be drawn between religious faith and belief and

religious practices. What the State protects is religious faith and belief. If

religious practices run counter to public order, morality or health or a policy

of social welfare upon which the State has embarked, then the religious practices

must give way before the good of the people of the State as a whole".' (emphasis

supplied)

A claim to sustain 'Sati' as a religious practice, was repelled by the Supreme

Court. Alike claim regarding slaughter of cow, was also rejected by the Supreme

Court in H. M. Quareshi v. State of Bihar (AIR 1958 SC 731). Restrictions are

imposed, for reasons as important as the preservation of the rights themselves.

We cannot read an article in isolation, missing the horizons and philosophy of

the Constitution, balancing myriad values. A myopic view, missing the magnificent

visions of the Constitution is not justified Art.51A, for instance refers to the

duty to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all people,

transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities, and to

value and preserve the rich heritage of our c