The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that faith-based directions cannot be issued by the Court for the police officers who carry out investigation in criminal cases as it may affect their power to investigate provided by law [Reshma v The Commissioner of Police].While dealing with a plea filed by a pardanashin woman (woman who wear a veil) named Reshma, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that in police investigations, there cannot be any room for anonymity since identification is essential for ensuring justice and maintaining security.Allowing anonymity under the guise of religious practice or personal choice could open the door to abuse and hinder the investigation process, the Court stressed.“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 and also regardless of the fact that whether these practices would be covered under Article 25 the Constitution or not. This would ensure transparency, accountability, and fair treatment of all individuals involved in the investigative process,” the Court said. It added,
“The fundamental rights, including those enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution have to surrender in favour of the safety of the country and the community irrespective of the gender of the accused, and in case of Article 25, the rights are subject to reasonable restrictions such as maintaining public order.The petitioner, one Reshma was taken to the police station by the Delhi Police after it received a call about a brawl breaking out in Delhi’s Rakab Ganj area. She was stated to be the sister of three men accused of assaulting the two victims.As per the police, Reshma was peeping from her balcony watching the activities in the street and was without a veil. Delhi Police told the Court that it was Reshma herself who asked them to take her to the police station fearing retaliation from the other side.However, her counsel argued that it was the police officials who forcibly entered her house at around 3 AM and dragged her from her house to the Chandni Mahal police station.She said that she was not given any time to wear pardah even though the police officials knew fully well that she is a pardanashin woman.In a detailed judgement, the Court delved into the practice of purdah/veil or ghoonghat in various religions.The Court discussed Ramayana, Sita and Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and concluded that neither the Hindu women practised any pardah nor was it mandatory for them.“They [Hindu women] always were empowered till a particular era, and history will speak for itself regarding its causes when Hindu women were burdened with the weight of a pardah, which though weight-less, carried unbearable weight for a woman who wears it, which cannot be explained in words. Thus, to sum up, in Hindus there is no mandatory provision to wear veil or ghoonghat, or Hindu women being pardanashin by virtue of their religion. Same is the scenario in case of Sikh women. In India, however, everyone can make their individual choices.”However, the Court did not delve deep into the issue of hijab or veil being essential part of Islam observing that the same is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court of India.The High Court also observed that the concept of “pardanashin woman” is essentially a legal concept.“As the concept of pardanashin women in Indian law essentially revolves around seclusion of a woman from the outer world and society at large resulting in their lack of understanding of societal affairs, there is less relevancy of this concept of pardanashin women in the modern era especially in the big cities considering the background and the lifestyle of modern women.”Reshma's plea was finally disposed of.The Court ordered the judgement to be sent to Director (Academics), Delhi Police Academy, for the purpose of training and sensitisation of all concerned.Advocates M Sufian Siddiqui, Rakesh Bhugra, Niyazuddin and Alya Veronica appeared for petitioner Reshma.Advocate Manisha Agrawal Narain acted as amicus curiae.
Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadya represented the Delhi Police.
TAGS: Delhi High Court faith-based directions police officers investigation criminal cases Reshma v The Commissioner of Police
