On 1st March, The Delhi High Court emphasizes that policing should be impartial and not tailored to serve any specific religious community. This statement comes in response to a plea by a ‘Pardanashin’ Muslim woman against Delhi Police.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
DELHI: Today(on 1st March),the Delhi High Court has emphasized the impartial nature of policing, asserting that law enforcement must not be tailored to serve the interests of any specific religious or cultural community. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while addressing a plea from a purdahnashin Muslim woman, highlighted the importance of upholding principles of impartiality, fairness, and reasonability in law enforcement. The court’s observations underscore the need to balance cultural sensitivities and religious practices with the common good, ensuring that the law is upheld without discrimination.
The plea brought before the court involved a purdahnashin Muslim woman who claimed to have been forcibly taken from her residence without her veil and illegally detained at a police station. Seeking sensitization of the Delhi Police regarding religious and social customs, the woman emphasized the need to protect the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Sharma, while addressing the plea, stated-
“While respecting cultural sensitivities and religious practices, law enforcement agencies must prioritise the common good and uphold the law without discrimination.”
The court further held that in police investigations, maintaining transparency and accountability is crucial, and anonymity under the guise of religious practice could potentially hinder the investigation process.
The Court’s Stand on Religious Practices: Addressing the specific issue of veiling practices, the court stated-
“Therefore, it is important that law enforcement agencies have the authority to identify individuals when necessary, in order to maintain public order, regardless of veiling practices.”
The court argued that allowing anonymity based on religious practices might open the door to abuse and hinder the pursuit of justice.
The court acknowledged the pending issue before the Supreme Court regarding whether wearing a pardah or burqa falls under essential religious practices covered by Article 25 of the Constitution of India. It highlighted that the term “Pardanashin” carries a broader connotation, encompassing the journey of women in India from being empowered to facing challenges associated with veiling.
The court drew attention to the absence of mandatory veiling provisions in Hinduism and Sikhism, emphasizing that in India, individuals are free to make their own choices. Referring to Mata Sita in the context of Ramayana, the court debunked the notion of her wearing a veil, stating that such references distort the description of religious texts.
The court made a noteworthy distinction between religion and dharma in Hinduism, highlighting that different dharmas are followed in various roles, whether professional or personal. This distinction, according to the court, is crucial in understanding the diversity of practices within Hinduism.
The Delhi High Court expressed deep appreciation for the petitioner’s legal counsel, Sh. M. Sufian Siddiqui, and the Amicus Curiae Smt. Manisha Agrawal Narain. The court acknowledged their efforts in bringing forth the case and providing a well-researched and elaborate report that shed light on various relevant issues.
The Delhi High Court’s recent observations reinforce the principles of impartiality, fairness, and reasonability in policing, emphasizing the need to balance cultural sensitivities with the common good.
