Today(on 12th August),The Supreme Court of India will examine the case of Zahiroddin Shamsoddin Bedade, an SRPF constable suspended since 2013 for keeping a beard, a matter involving religious freedom and police grooming standards. The case reached the Apex Court after the Bombay High Court upheld Bedade’s suspension.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 12th August), The Supreme Court of India is set to delve into the intricate case of Zahiroddin Shamsoddin Bedade, a constable in the State Reserve Police Force (SRPF), who has been embroiled in a legal battle since 2013 over his suspension for keeping a beard. This case, which has significant implications for religious freedom and grooming standards within the police force, was brought before the Apex Court after the Bombay High Court upheld the suspension of Bedade.
Background of the Case
The controversy dates back to 2012, when Bedade, serving as a constable in the SRPF, was initially granted permission to grow a beard. However, the situation took a dramatic turn when the Maharashtra State Reserve Police Force (SRPF) amended its policy, mandating strict adherence to specific grooming standards. Following this policy shift, Bedade’s permission to maintain his beard was revoked, leading to his suspension.
On December 12, 2012, the Bombay High Court supported the SRPF’s decision, emphasizing that Bedade could only maintain his beard during religious observances. The High Court cited the force’s secular nature and the necessity for discipline as key reasons behind this decision.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Bedade escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, seeking relief from what he perceived as an infringement on his religious rights.
ALSO READ: “We Need to Expand Infrastructure”: CJI’s Vision to Tackle Case Pendency
The case, which has been pending since January 22, 2013, gained renewed attention when it was listed for hearing before the Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
The Bench acknowledged the significance of the case, stating-
“This is a significant constitutional issue that requires thorough argument. We will schedule the hearing on a non-miscellaneous day.”
At the outset of the hearing, Bedade’s Counsel informed the Bench that the matter had previously been part of the Lok Adalat but could not be settled.
The Counsel further emphasized-
“This is a civil appeal that requires argument, and it will take some time.”
It is noteworthy that on April 13, 2017, the Supreme Court had offered Bedade a potential resolution to his predicament. The Bench, led by the then Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and including Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, expressed regret over the situation but suggested that Bedade could be reinstated if he agreed to keep his beard only during religious periods.
“It’s your choice,”
– the Bench remarked, indicating a possible compromise.
However, Bedade’s Counsel declined this offer, arguing that Islam does not endorse the concept of a temporary beard. This stance added another layer of complexity to the case, as it highlighted the tension between religious practices and institutional regulations.
Comparison with a Similar Case
In a related context, the Supreme Court had earlier ruled in a similar case involving an Indian Air Force (IAF) official, Mohammad Zubair. On December 15, 2016, the Court ruled that unless keeping a beard was an integral part of one’s religion—such as in the case of the Sikh community—personnel could not be permitted to grow a beard. This ruling is likely to influence the proceedings in Bedade’s case, as the Court may draw parallels between the two cases.
The upcoming detailed examination by the Supreme Court will not only decide Bedade’s fate but could also set a precedent for how religious practices are accommodated within disciplined forces like the SRPF. The Bench’s observation that this is “an important issue of the Constitution” emphasizes the potential constitutional implications of the case, particularly concerning religious freedom and the extent to which it can be exercised within uniformed services.
