SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Ker) 39

Judges : BALAKRISHNA MENON
MOHAMMED FASI - Appellant
Versus
SUPDT.OF POLICE, ALLEPPY - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 3143 of 1982 K
Decided On : 02/20/1985
Advocates Appeared :
M.V. Ibrahimkutty; For Petitioner C. Sankaran Nair; Government Pleader; For Respondents

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the freedom of religion extends to religious practices and propagation of religion, subject to restrictions mentioned in the Constitution itself, and non-essential religious practices may be restricted by the State without infringing fundamental rights under Art.25 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

beard - religious freedom - Art.25(1) of the Constitution - The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College, Society and another etc. v. State of Gujarat and another (A. I.R. 1974 S.C.1389), Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar, (A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 282), M.H. Quareshi v. State of Bihar (A. I. R.1958 S. C. 731), Durgah Committee, Ajmer and another v. Syed Hussain Ali and Others (A.I.R.1961 S.C.1402) - The judgment discusses the petitioner's request for permission to grow a beard on a permanent basis due to religious beliefs, and the court's analysis of Art.25(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. The court refers to various cases to establish that the freedom of religion extends to religious practices and propagation of religion as well, subject to restrictions mentioned in the Constitution itself. The court concludes that the petitioner's request to grow a beard on a permanent basis does not infringe his fundamental rights under Art.25 of the Constitution, as it is not an essential part of the practice of Islamic religion.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Head-constable in the Police Service of the State of Kerala, sought permission to grow a beard on a permanent basis due to religious beliefs. His request was declined by the Inspector General of Police, leading to the filing of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's request to grow a beard on a permanent basis does not infringe his fundamental rights under Art.25 of the Constitution, as it is not an essential part of the practice of Islamic religion.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's request to grow a beard on a permanent basis due to religious beliefs infringed his fundamental rights under Art.25 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Art.25(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. The court referred to various cases to establish that the freedom of religion extends to religious practices and propagation of religion as well, subject to restrictions mentioned in the Constitution itself.

Final Decision: The original petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs. The judgment in this original petition would be implemented after fifteen days, as there was a stay of the impugned orders pending disposal of the original petition.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner a Head-constable in the Police Service of the State of Kerala, seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P2 proceedings of the 3rd respondent the Inspector General of Police, Kerala, declining his request for permission to grow beard on a permanent basis.

2. The petitioner entered service as a Police constable on 1-4-1963 and was promoted as Head-constable on 3-4-1974. From February 1981 onwards he started growing beard and submitted a representation Ext. P1 dated 10-2-1981 to the Inspector General of Police for permission to grow beard, as according to him, shaving the face is opposed to Quoranic injunctions and the Islamic religion. As a devout Muslim he wants to lead a religious life without transgressing the Code of Conduct, prescribed by his religion. His petition Ext.P1 was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, as per his order Ext.P2 dated 7-12-1981 declining his request to grow beard on a permanent basis. A similar request to the Government was rejected as per Ext.P6 order dated 17-3-1982 produced along with C.M.P.No.2706 of 1985 seeking to amend the O.P. adding a prayer to quash also Ext.P6. as opposed to Art.25 of the Constitution.

3. In support of his contention the petitioner has produced Exts.P4 and P5 as per which the Air Force Personnel at Bangalore and Members of the Armed Forces in Karnataka respectively belonging to the Muslim religion are permitted to grow beard. The petitioner relies on Hadiths Nos.780 and 781 in Vol. 7 of Sahih Al-Bukhari, at pages 516 and 517, extracted below, as embodying the prophets instructions to his followers to grow beard.

780, Narrated Nafi: Ibn 'Umar said, "the Prophet said, 'Do the opposite of what the pagans do. Keep the beards and cut the moustaches short". Whenever Ibn 'Umar performed the Hajj or'Umra, he used to hold his beard with his hand and cut whatever remained outside his hold.

781. Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "Cut the moustaches short and leave the beard (as it is)."

Hadiths are said to be the words of the Prophet spoken on different occasions and at different contexts. Hadith 786 at page 519 of Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 7 reads as follows:

786. Narrated Abu Huraira; The Prophet said, "Jews and Christians do not dye their hair so you should do the opposite what they do."

The petitioner has no case that dyeing the hair is farz (obligatory) according to Islam. These statements by the Prophet made apparently in different contexts are only sunnath (optional) and are not understood as obligatory for every Musalman to follow.

4. In the additional counter affidavit dated 4-2-1985 filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated at page 2:

"The Court can judge the existence or otherwise of a religious practice. Common experience shows that such a practice is not in vogue. The President of a neighbouring Theocratic Islamic Republic does not wear a beard. Similarly high dignitaries like President, Vice President, Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court and Ministers have not been wearing beards".

It is also not disputed that the petitioner himself had no beard ever since his entry in service in the year 1963 until he submitted his representation Ext, P1 in February 1981 for permission to grow beard as a religious requirement enjoined by the holy Quoran and the words of the Prophet. Counsel for the petitioner was not able to point out anything said in the holy Quoran requiring the followers of Islam to grow beard. The practice of growing beard and dyeing hair can only be treated as optional and not obligatory among the Muslims.

5. Under Art.25(1) of the Constitution all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Clause (2) of Art.25 preserves the right of the State inter alia to make laws to provide for social welfare and reform and to regulate econ


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top