The Supreme Court today dismissed a Muslim IAF officer’s plea against his sacking for keeping a long beard..A Bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur, DY Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao, JJ delivered a judgment stating that the regulations that bar the soldiers from sporting beards does not interfere with their religious freedom..At the centre of the controversy is the policy governing the growth of hair, including facial hair, enunciated in paragraph 425 of the Armed Force Regulations, 1964. Clause (b) of Regulation 425, stipulates that an airman will be permitted to grow hair or to retain a beard where the religion professed by him prohibits the cutting of hair or shaving of facial hair. In that case, the hair and/or beard must be kept clean and properly dressed and cannot be removed except on medical grounds or on an application which is duly approved..Ansari Aftab Ahmed had submitted an application requesting that he be allowed to keep a beard, which was rejected. He was discharged from service following his staunch refusal to comply with the order to shave off his beard..Eventually, he approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which opined that keeping a beard was not integral to the religion of the petitioner. Ansari therefore found himself knocking the doors of the Supreme Court..Senior Counsel Salman Khurshid appeared for the appellant..Currently, the policy as formulated under Regulation 425 says that,.“Only those Muslim personnel who had kept beard along with moustache at the time of commissioning/enrolment prior to 01 Jan 2002, would be allowed to keep beard and moustache. Such personnel are to maintain it in a manner that it is neat, trimmed and tidy and not more than the length which could be covered by one fist. Muslims who have grown beard after joining service should shave off the beard. Under no circumstances, a Muslim person who had beard at the time of joining service before 01 Jan 2002 shall be allowed to maintain beard without moustache. Moustache would be a part of the beard.”.The Supreme Court, in view of the regulation, noted that “the touchstone for being allowed to grow one’s hair or to retain a beard is where there is a religious command which prohibits either the hair being cut or a beard being shaved.” It arrived at the conclusion that the appellant’s case was not covered under Regulation 425 (b)..Noting that the discipline of the Armed Forces was paramount, the Bench went on to add that,.“Regulations and policies in regard to personal appearance are not intended to discriminate against religious beliefs nor do they have the effect of doing so. Their object and purpose is to ensure uniformity, cohesiveness, discipline and order which are indispensable to the Air Force, as indeed to every armed force of the Union.”.It held that the policy letters which have been issued by the Air Headquarters from time to time do not override the provisions of Regulation 425(b) which have a statutory character. The policy circulars are only clarificatory or supplementary in nature. It, therefore, dismissed the appeal..Read the judgment below..Image taken from here.
The Supreme Court today dismissed a Muslim IAF officer’s plea against his sacking for keeping a long beard..A Bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur, DY Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao, JJ delivered a judgment stating that the regulations that bar the soldiers from sporting beards does not interfere with their religious freedom..At the centre of the controversy is the policy governing the growth of hair, including facial hair, enunciated in paragraph 425 of the Armed Force Regulations, 1964. Clause (b) of Regulation 425, stipulates that an airman will be permitted to grow hair or to retain a beard where the religion professed by him prohibits the cutting of hair or shaving of facial hair. In that case, the hair and/or beard must be kept clean and properly dressed and cannot be removed except on medical grounds or on an application which is duly approved..Ansari Aftab Ahmed had submitted an application requesting that he be allowed to keep a beard, which was rejected. He was discharged from service following his staunch refusal to comply with the order to shave off his beard..Eventually, he approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which opined that keeping a beard was not integral to the religion of the petitioner. Ansari therefore found himself knocking the doors of the Supreme Court..Senior Counsel Salman Khurshid appeared for the appellant..Currently, the policy as formulated under Regulation 425 says that,.“Only those Muslim personnel who had kept beard along with moustache at the time of commissioning/enrolment prior to 01 Jan 2002, would be allowed to keep beard and moustache. Such personnel are to maintain it in a manner that it is neat, trimmed and tidy and not more than the length which could be covered by one fist. Muslims who have grown beard after joining service should shave off the beard. Under no circumstances, a Muslim person who had beard at the time of joining service before 01 Jan 2002 shall be allowed to maintain beard without moustache. Moustache would be a part of the beard.”.The Supreme Court, in view of the regulation, noted that “the touchstone for being allowed to grow one’s hair or to retain a beard is where there is a religious command which prohibits either the hair being cut or a beard being shaved.” It arrived at the conclusion that the appellant’s case was not covered under Regulation 425 (b)..Noting that the discipline of the Armed Forces was paramount, the Bench went on to add that,.“Regulations and policies in regard to personal appearance are not intended to discriminate against religious beliefs nor do they have the effect of doing so. Their object and purpose is to ensure uniformity, cohesiveness, discipline and order which are indispensable to the Air Force, as indeed to every armed force of the Union.”.It held that the policy letters which have been issued by the Air Headquarters from time to time do not override the provisions of Regulation 425(b) which have a statutory character. The policy circulars are only clarificatory or supplementary in nature. It, therefore, dismissed the appeal..Read the judgment below..Image taken from here.