The Madras High Court recently held that according to the Madras Police Gazette of 1957, Muslim policemen in Tamil Nadu are permitted to maintain trimmed and tidy beards even while on duty [G Abdul Khadar Ibrahim v. The Commissioner of Police and anr].
Justice L Victoria Gowri added that India is a land of diverse religions and customs and that the police department cannot punish its Muslim employees for maintaining a beard as per their religious beliefs.
"The said norms (of the Madras Police Gazette) throw light on the fact that Muslims are permitted to maintain trim and tidy beard even while on duty. 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. Despite the department of the police of the Government of Tamil Nadu warrants strict discipline, the duty of upkeeping discipline in the department 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," the June 5 order said.
The order was passed on a petition by a police constable who was punished for appearing before a superior officer with a beard after returning from Mecca.
In 2018, the constable had been granted leave for 31 days for a religious pilgrimage in Mecca. After his return, he sought an extension of leave due to an infection in his leg.
An Assistant Commissioner refused to grant him extended leave and instead questioned the constable about his appearance with a beard.
In 2019, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) demanded a formal explanation over the constable maintaining a beard, which was said to be against the mandate of the Madras Police Gazette.
Two charges were eventually framed against the constable - one for maintaining a beard and another for not reporting back to duty after his 31-day leave and seeking medical leave for around 20 days.
In 2021, the DCP ordered that the constable's increment be halted for three years with cumulative effect as punishment. The constable filed an appeal against the Commissioner of Police, who modified the sentence to the halt of increment for two years without cumulative effect.
This was challenged by the constable before the High Court which granted him relief on June 5.
The Court termed the modified punishment as shockingly disproportionate and quashed the Commissioner's penal order.
The matter was sent back to the Commissioner for fresh order in accordance with law within eight weeks.
"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 added.
Advocate G Karthick from Lajapathi Roy Associates appeared on behalf of the police constable.
Government advocate J John Rajadurai represented the Madurai police commissioner and DCP.
[Read Order]