Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. Both these writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts. Primarily, the facts from Civil Writ Petition No. 14927 of 2005, are being noticed. 2. Petitioner, a Muslim by religion, joined the Air Force on 19.12.2001 as an Airman and later on promoted to the rank of Leading Aircraftsman (LAC) in August, 2004. At the time of joining his service, he was not supporting a bed. The petitioner vide his application dated 10.01.2005 informed his superiors that he intends to support a beard. His request was not acceded to by the respondents. It is alleged that on 16.06.2005, the petitioner was threatened by respondent No. 4 that he will be discharged being mentally unfit if he continues to apply for supporting a beard. The petitioner has further stated that he proceeded on 40 days annual leave w.e.f. 20.06.2005 and during leave he did not shave his beard and reported back on 01.08.2005 supporting a beard for which he was put under close arrest and issued a warning letter dated 01.08.2005 whereby he was informed that he was supporting a beard in service uniform while on duty without prior permission from the appropriate level. He was further informed that the matter has been viewed very seriously and he was asked to shave off his beard and report at 0700 hours on 02.08.2005, failing which severe disciplinary action will be taken against him. The petitioner claims to have submitted another application on 02.08.2005 seeking leave to support a beard. A certificate was issued by the Sqdn. Leader that he is provisionally authorised to keep beard with effect from 01.08.2005 till finalisation of his application forwarded to the Headquarters. Thereafter, vide the impugned letter dated 05.09.2005, provisional authorisation earlier granted to the petitioner to sport a beard was withdrawn and the petitioner was asked to shave off his beard on 20.09.2005. It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. While the above writ petition was pending, One Mohammed Zubair filed a writ petition No. 16985 of 2005 to challenge order dated 26.10.2005, Annexure P-5, asking him to shave his beard raising all the pleas and grounds of the aforesaid Writ Petition No 14927 of 2005, additionally challenging the policy instructions dated 24.02.2003 and 01.04.2003, Annexures P-2 and P-3, respectively. 3. 3. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order and the policy letters referred to here-in-above invoking provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution of india and also relied upon Regulation 425(b), policy letters dated 08.05.1980 and 10.08.1982. With a view to appreciate the contentions of the petitioners, relevant extracts from the aforesaid Regulations and policy decisions are noticed hereunder; "Regulation 425 of the Regulations for the Indian Air Force. 425 (a) Except as in sub-para (b), the hair of the head will be kept neatly cut and trimmed. The hair of airman under detention/sentence will be cut no shorter than is customary throughout the service except on medical advice and except where on application made by the airman, he has been permitted to keep long hair. Face will be clean shaven, whiskers ana moustaches, if worn, shall be of moderate length. (b) Personnel where religion prohibits the cutting of hair or shaving off the face of its members, will be permitted to grow hair or retain beard. However, such hair/or beard will be kept clean, properly dressed and will not be removed except on medical grounds or on application duty approved." "3. It is clarified that according to Muslim Religion law, a true Muslim must keep beard. It will therefore, be seen that the Air Force Personnel professing Muslim religion are covered by the exception under Para 425 (b) of the regulation law further specifies that the beard when kept, shall be of such length that when covered by a fist no hair shall be visible outside and that help of artificial aids for keeping the beard tidy is forbidden under Muslim religion law." "3.... However, if Muslim personnel desire to sport a beard after joining service they are to submit a formal application to inform their Commanding Officer of this fact and can start growing beard from that day......." 4. Based upon the aforesaid regulations and policy decisions, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that it is the religious requirement of the petitioners to grow beard and where religious tenet permit the member of a disciplined force to suport a beard after joining the service, he is only to inform the Commanding Officer and can start growing beard from that date. 5. 5. The respondents, however, have strongly contested the plea of the petitioners and stated that the instructions dated 08.05.1980 (Annexure P-1) superseded by instructions issued on 10.08.1982 and later on these instructions were also superseded by the policy decision dated 06.10.1999 which prohibits the Muslim Personnel of the Air Force to suport a beard after joining the service without prior permission. However if a Muslim Personnel was having a beard at the time of joining the service, he is permitted to retain the same. The relevant extracts i.e. Paras 3 and 4 of the aforesaid police are also reproduced hereunder: "3. Growth removal of hair/beard: Under the provisions of amended Para 425 (b) of Regulations for the Air Force, 1964, service personnel professing Muslim religion are also permitted to keep beard as ordained by their religious tenets. No formal permission is required if the Muslim personnel have already sported a beard at the time of joining the service. However, if the Muslim person desires to sport a beard after joining service he is to submit a forma! application to his Commanding Officer requesting for permission giving the reasons. He can start growing beard only after his application is approved by the Commanding Officer. The CO while according permission is to ascertain from the individual the reasons for the sudden decision to grow the beard. He will also advise the individual to ensure that he keeps the beard neat, trim & tidy. It shall also be explained that the individual shall not be allowed to shave off again unless he had sought permission for a specific period. Ail personnel granted permission to grow beard should preferably be given one week leave from the date of approval of their application so that a person does not look as though he is unshaven during the initial stages of growing beard. After permission of the CO, the original copy of the application is to form part of the unit copy of service documents of the individual. Their changed identity is to be notified to all concerned through POR/documentation. The identity cards of such personnel are to be changed after three months from the date of intimation or when the physical change of identity is well established whichever is earlier. Their changed identity is to be notified to all concerned through POR/documentation. The identity cards of such personnel are to be changed after three months from the date of intimation or when the physical change of identity is well established whichever is earlier. During the intervening period, such personnel are to be issued with a certificate stating the fact of changed identity which the personnel are to carry with the identify card. Muslim personnel are not to remove their beard except on medical grounds or on an application duly approved by the Commanding Officer (See Para 11 below). 4. Maintenance of beard. Muslim religious tenets specify that it is preferred that the beard should not be kept more than the length which could be covered by one fist and the use of artificial aids for keeping the beard tidy is forbidden. These are to be adhered to by all Muslim-personnel keeping beard." 6. It is further stated that 1999 policy was further replaced by policy dated 24.02.2003 (Annexure R-2). Relevant extracts of policy Annexures R-2 is reproduced as follows: "1. The existing policy "on the subject is laid down vide Para 425 of Regulations for the Air Force, 1964 (RE) and Air HQ letter of even reference dated 06 Oct. 99. This policy not only suffers from some anomalies but is also silent on certain aspects of growing of hair and beard. Against this background; the policy of growing hair, beard and wearing of turbans has been re-examined. It is decided to remove the existing anomalies and make the policy explicitly clear and implemented common code of conduct and bearing by the Air Force personnel. 2....... "2(b) Only those Muslim personnel who had kept beard alpng with moustache at the time of commissioning/enrollment 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. 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. 2(c) Non-Sikh personnel are not permitted to keep beard other than on medical grounds or for a short period towards fulfillment of specific religious rites and ceremonies after obtaining specific permission from the Commanding Officer. However, the period is not to exceed 30 days. The CO shall accord such permission after ascertaining the absolute necessity and compulsion. Such individuals who are allowed to grow beard will not be permitted to attend any formal service functions in uniform or in civil dress during the period when beard is grown." 7. Based upon this policy, it is stated by Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur that the petitioners were/are not entitled to sport a beard after joining the service without the specific leave from the Commanding Officer. 8. The respondents have also sought dismissal of the petition on the ground that the petitioners have approached this Court without resorting to the remedy available to him under Section 26 of the Air Force Act, 1950. 9. As far the factual background is concerned, there is no dispute regarding the facts referred to hereinabove. 10. From the perusal of Regulation 425, it appears that such personnel whose religion prohibits cutting of hair or shaving of the face, will be permitted not to cut hair and retain the beard. As far the policy of 1980 is concerned, it only prescribes the length of the beard of a Muslim where he is permitted to sport a beard. Subsequent policy of 1982 specifically require that if a Muslim wants to sport a beard after joining the service, he has to make formal application to inform the Commanding Officer of his desire which is also subject to certain conditions. However, if a Muslim is already having a beard at the time of joining of the service, no such permission is required. The above stated policy was replaced by 1999 policy issued on 06.10.1999. Besides modifying regulation 425 of the Air Force Regulations of 1964, the policy letter while referring to the cases of violations of the policy make the following provisions : - "15. The above stated policy was replaced by 1999 policy issued on 06.10.1999. Besides modifying regulation 425 of the Air Force Regulations of 1964, the policy letter while referring to the cases of violations of the policy make the following provisions : - "15. Cases of Muslim personnel who violate this policy are to be dealt with in accordance with Para 11(a) and (b) above." 11. Yet another policy letter was issued on 01.04.2003 (Annexure R/3) dealing with the same subject, which is reproduced as follows :- "1. The existing policy on the subject is laid down vide Para 425 of Regulations for the Air Force, 1964 (RE) and Air HQ letter AIR HQ/C-23404/24/PS dated 06 Oct. 99. This policy not only suffers from some anomalies but is also silent on certain aspects of growing of hair arid beard. Against this background, the policy of growing hair, beard and wearing of turbans has been re-examined. It is decided to remove the existing anomalies and make the policy explicitly clear and implemented common code of conduct and bearing by the Air Force personnel. 2(b) Only those Muslim personnel who had kept beard along with moustache at the time of commissioning/enrollment 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 pne 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." 12. Aforesaid policy was supplemented vide circular dated 09.06.2003 (Annexure R-3/4) wherein the policy letter dated 24.02.2003 and 01.04.2003 have been reiterated. Relevant extract is reproduced as under: Annexure R-3/4 2. The policy on the aforesaid subject was evolved and modalities for its implementation were discussed during the recent Commanders Conference to ensure that the philosophy behind the same was not misconstrued. The aim of this policy was to instal a sense of militariness in the Air Force personnel and to lay down a common code of conduct and bearing amongst its cadres. Our approach was in conformity with similar instructions followed by the Army and the Navy. The aim of this policy was to instal a sense of militariness in the Air Force personnel and to lay down a common code of conduct and bearing amongst its cadres. Our approach was in conformity with similar instructions followed by the Army and the Navy. In implementing the policy, we need to ensure that the legitimate practices/tenets of all religions are respected and permitted within the laid down norms. 3. Consequent to the issuance of that directive, it has been noticed that the essence of the instructions has not been fully understood by all. Some have taken recourse to representations against some of the contents of the policy, least realizing that no curbs were sought to be imposed on any individual or group of individuals in as far as adhering to their religious practices are concerned. 4. In an effort to allay the fears or misconception of the Non-Sikh personnel, it is clarified that all those personnel whose religion/religious practices demand sporting of beard and moustache; they could continue to wear the beard as long as such a permission has been granted to them prior to issuance of this letter or they had beard and moustache, as part of their religious practices, at the time of joining the Air Force. In pursuance of this directive, Commanders are to ensure that necessary endorsements are made in the personal documents of such individuals and photographs depicting such changes in the facial appearance are affixed to them. The Identity Cards also need to be changed accordingly. 5. It is further clarified that whenever such personnel are permitted to sport beard as part of their religious practices, it is mandatory that they grow moustache as well. Moustache is to be an integral part of the beard and the permission encompasses both. Beard without moustache will not be allowed. The size of beard not exceeding that defined at Para 2(b) of the letter ibid is to be ensured." From the perusal of the aforesaid policy letters, it becomes clear that though upto the year 1982, no formal permission was required for growing a beard. However, in the revised policy dated 06.10.1999 a Muslim personnel of Air Force was prohibited from sporting a beard after joining the service without prior permission of the Commanding Officer. This policy further came to be revised/substituted by the subsequent policies dated 24.02.2003, 01.04.2003 and 09,06.2003. However, in the revised policy dated 06.10.1999 a Muslim personnel of Air Force was prohibited from sporting a beard after joining the service without prior permission of the Commanding Officer. This policy further came to be revised/substituted by the subsequent policies dated 24.02.2003, 01.04.2003 and 09,06.2003. Under these policies of 2003, it was provided that such Muslim personnel who had kept beard along with moustache at the time of commissioning/enrollment prior to 01 Jan. 2002, were allowed to continue to keep beard and moustache. Sub-para (c) further provides that no non-Sikh personnel is entitled to keep beard other than on medical grounds or for a short period towards fulfillment of specific religious rites and religious ceremonies after taking permission from the Commanding Officer and even the permission can be granted only upto 30 days and then such personnel who has grown beard for short period will not be permitted to attend any formal service functions in uniform or in civil dress during the period when beard is grown. This policy further imposes an obligation upon the force personnel to indicate reasons in the application seeking leave to grow beard suddenly. 13. These policy letters clearly prescribe the object and purpose for which such restrictions were imposed. All these instructions also clearly indicate that the policy decisions and guidelines are not intending to interfere in the religious practices but with a view to maintain proper facial identity of the members of the force during the period of service. The object is not to impose any restrictions or curb on any individual or individual group adhering to religious practices etc. 14. Mr. Navkiran Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that these instructions can not enforce any restrictions on the religious rites of the members of the force belonging to a particular religion. The arguments of the learned counsel is two folds : (i) that Regulation 425 Para 2(b) do not impose any restriction on the rites of a Muslim member of the force to grow beard rather it facilitates the growing of the beard as a part of the religious tenet; and (ii) that any restriction imposed by the subsequent policy guidelines has no binding effect as these interfere in religious sentiments, tenets and practices of the Muslim members of the force. To the contrary, Ms. To the contrary, Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, Assistant Solicitor General of India, has supported the impugned order and contended that: (i) to grow beard is not a compulsive part of the Muslim religion like a Sikh religion where growing hair and beard is a compulsive religious practice/ requirement; (ii) all guidelines have been issued not with an intent to interfere with religious practices or sentiments of members of any particular religion but to maintain and enforce proper discipline in the force, keep the facial identity of its members which is very essential in the force; and (iii) such guidelines can be issued under Articles 25 and 33 of the Constitution of India. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Articles 25 and 33 are quoted hereunder: "25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. - (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law- (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Explanation I. The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. Explanation II. - In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. 33. Power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this Part in their application to Forces, etc. Explanation II. - In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. 33. Power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this Part in their application to Forces, etc. - Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in their application to, (a) the members of the Armed Forces; or (b) the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order; or (c) persons employed in any bureau or other organization established by the State for purposes of intelligence or counter intelligence; or (d) persons employed in, or in connection with, the telecommunication systems set up for the purposes of any Force, bureau or organization referred to in clauses (a) to (c), be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.]" 16. As far, Article 33 is concerned, it empowers the Parliament to restrict of abrogate the right conferred under Part-Ill of the Constitution of India (Fundamental rights) in respect to Armed Forces and members of other forces specified therein to ensure proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them. These are regulatory powers in respect to armed forces which can only be exercised by the Parliament by enacting law. In the present case, indisputably, regulations and policy letters relied upon, do not fall in the category of law made by Parliament. Therefore, these regulatory guidelines cannot be construed to be issued in exercise of powers under Article 33 of the Constitution of India. 17. Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India confers freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. However, such right is subject to the maintenance of public order, morality and health. In other words, the right to profess, practice and propagate religion is not an absolute right and can be regulated on account of public order, morality and health. However, such right is subject to the maintenance of public order, morality and health. In other words, the right to profess, practice and propagate religion is not an absolute right and can be regulated on account of public order, morality and health. Sub Clause (2) of Article 25 of the Constitution of India further empowers the State to make law regulating or restricting an economic, financial, political or secular activities which may be associated with religious practice and for providing social welfare and reform in respect to Hindu Religious, Institution or a public character for all classes and sections of Hindus. Explanation-I of Article 25 of the Constitution of India, assumes significance in respect to members of Sikh religion as they have been specifically permit ted to carry Kirpans as a part of their religious practice. Sub- clause (2) of Article 25 of the Constitution of India further saves an existing law which deals with the regulation or restriction to the activities specified under clause- (a) and (b) of this Sub clause. 18. The next question which needs determination is whether the practice of growing beard is an essential tenet of the Muslim religious practice and any restriction imposed by the guidelines is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. No material has been placed on record by the petitioner to support the contention that sporting a beard is an integral part of the religious faith of Muslim or is compulsive. To the contrary, the petitioner himself has stated that he started sporting beard while on leave and before that even when he joined Air Force, he was a clean shaven. 19. The fundamental duties of a Muslim professing Islam are contained in the "Shriat", which means the path to be followed. Mulla in his commentary of Mohammedan Law 6th Edition has quoted then following five fundamental duties and obligations of a Muslim under Shriat considered to be a religious Commandment (Hukam). These five commandments (Hukams) are as under: (i) Farz-Five daily prayers (namaz) - One must do strictly. (ii) Haram-Drinking wine - One must forbade strictly. (iii) Mandub/Additional Prayers on the Id - One may do. (iv) Makrum-Eating certain kinds of fish prohibited - One may refrain from. (v) Jaiz or Mubah -Thousands of Jaiz things, such as travelling by air - Shariat is indifferent towards it. (ii) Haram-Drinking wine - One must forbade strictly. (iii) Mandub/Additional Prayers on the Id - One may do. (iv) Makrum-Eating certain kinds of fish prohibited - One may refrain from. (v) Jaiz or Mubah -Thousands of Jaiz things, such as travelling by air - Shariat is indifferent towards it. Five acts or fundamental principles of Islam have also been quoted by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, a Muslim Scholar and Researcher in the Islamic Centre, New Delhi, in his book "Islam the voice of Human Nature". The five pillars of the Islam have been quoted as: (i) Faith (Iman), means belief, in divine truths, prayer in essence. (ii) Worship (Salah) it entails worship of God at five appointed times. (iii) Fasting (Swam) by fasting i.e. depriving himself of the prime necessities of life, one learns valuable lessons of fortitude. (iv) Charity (Zakat) - Symbol of ones obligations to recognize the needs of others and to be in sympathy with them in pain or in sorrow. Generally, 2.5 percent of a persons income needs to be spent upon religious duties and on needy members of the community. (v) Pilgrimage (Hajj) - it means gathering of believers at Islams holy city Mecca a physical affirmation to God. 20. In view of the above, it is clear that to grow beard does not fall in any of the fundamental commandments which a devout Muslim is under any obligation to observe. 21. A similar question came up for consideration before the Kerala High Court in Mohammed Fasi vs. Superintendent of Police, Alleppy & others, 1985 K.L.T. 185. In that case, the petitioner who was a Head Constable in the Police Service of the State of Kerala, was denied permission to grow beard on permanent basis. At the time of his entry in the service in the year 1963, he was a clean shaven and it was in the year 1981 he started growing beard and submitted a representation to the Inspector General of Police for permission to grow beard claiming that the shaving the face is opposed to Quoranic injunctions and Islamic religion. He claimed to be a devout Muslim and desired to lead a religious life by sporting a beard. His request was rejected by the Inspector General of Police. He filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court. Under Rule 174, the Travancore- Cochin Pblice Manual Vol. He claimed to be a devout Muslim and desired to lead a religious life by sporting a beard. His request was rejected by the Inspector General of Police. He filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court. Under Rule 174, the Travancore- Cochin Pblice Manual Vol. 1 which was applicable to the State of Kerala for growing beard, permission of District Superintendent of Police is required. Said rule is reproduced as under: "174. None can grow beard without the permission of the District Superintendent of Police. This covers all pilgrimage, vows, act. Persons desiring to go to any place of pilgrimage .should apply one month in advance to the District Superintendent of Police and only if permission is granted, he can go." 22. The writ petition filed by Mohammed Fasi came to be dismissed with the following observations: "The petitioner has to abide by the discipline of the service of which he is a member and especially, so in the case of Police Service. There is no infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 25 of the Constitution in declining him permission to grow beard on a permanent basis, while in the Police Service. I do not see any merit in this original petition. It is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs." 23. The aforesaid judgment was re-affirmed in K.S. Muhammed Kutty vs. The Inspector General of Police, Trivandrum and others, 1987 LAB. LC. 1278, wherein the following observations have been made: "8. The role of police has to be appreciated in judging the restrictions governing the force. Law enforcement rests appreciably on the police. It must have a secular image and cannot lend itself to denominational nuances or overtones, more so, when national integration and secular concepts should be in the forefront. A "uniformed force" which connotes a superior discipline cannot don-sectarian appearances as Hindus, Muslims and such like. "The Court should take a common sense view and be actuated by considerations of practical necessity" (Adelaide Co. vs. Common Wealth, 67 CLR 116- Latham C.J.). In situations like communal riots, identifiably of police force in terms of their religious denominations will defeat the object of policing itself. Likewise, presence of police in places of worship, should occasion arise, will serve no purpose, if the members of the force are identifiable by caste, creed or religion. vs. Common Wealth, 67 CLR 116- Latham C.J.). In situations like communal riots, identifiably of police force in terms of their religious denominations will defeat the object of policing itself. Likewise, presence of police in places of worship, should occasion arise, will serve no purpose, if the members of the force are identifiable by caste, creed or religion. The realities of life cannot be ignored, nor can one miss the gloss that life has writ on the constitutional clauses. 9. Paragraphs 173 and 174 of the Travancore-Cochin Police Manual prohibit the wearing of beard except with permission and except during pilgrimage and vows. These provisions have force of law, under Section 17 of the Kerala Police Act. The Kerala Police Drill Manual and Standing Orders of the Armed Police Gazette and "the Police Drill Manual published by the Bureau of Police Research and Development. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, also contain similar provisions. Such regulations are seen in rules governing police forces in other countries of the world. These regulations are reasonable having regard to the objects sought to be achieved." 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Satpal Khan vs. State of Haryana and others, 2007(2) S.C.T. 442. In this case, the petitioner, a Muslim, was selected as a Constable in the Haryana Police and during his service he started sporting beard without permission from the competent authority. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was dismissed from service. He challenged his dismissal order before this Court in C.W.P. No. 7746 of 2006 which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court. The Court relied upon the instructions of the Government of India which allowed sporting of a heard and based upon that the order of dismissal was set aside. Reference is also made to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Haider Ali vs. Union of India & Ors., CWP No. 3263 of 1999, decided on 20.12.2002. In this case, a Muslim member of the CRPF was dismissed by Summary Court Martial for growing beard without permission. Reference is also made to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Haider Ali vs. Union of India & Ors., CWP No. 3263 of 1999, decided on 20.12.2002. In this case, a Muslim member of the CRPF was dismissed by Summary Court Martial for growing beard without permission. The order of Summary Court Martial was set aside by the Delhi High Court relying upon the letter dated 18.07.1990 of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein it was mentioned that a Member of the Force belonging to the Muslim Community may be permitted to keep beard on religious grounds. 25. From the reading of Article 25 of the Constitution of India, it is apparent that the freedom to profess any religion, according to the conscience of a person is protected in respect to all persons. Not only there is freedom to profess any religion, but also to practice and propagate, meaning thereby that every person has a right to promote his reiigious beliefs and communicate to others, of course, subject to restrictions like public order, morality and health. The concept of Article 25 of the Constitution of India has been dealt with by the Honble Apex Court in various judgments. 26. A Constitution Bench of Honble Apex Court in the case of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thiratha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 (Vol V) Supreme Court Reports 1005, wherein it has been held as under at page 1028: "..........As we have already indicated, freedom of religion in our Constitution is not confined to religious beliefs only; it extends to religious practices as well subject to the restrictions which the Constitution itself has laid down......." 27. Similar view was expressed by another Constitution Bench of Honble Apex Court in the case of Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs. The State of Bombay and others, 1954 (Vol V) Supreme Court Reports 1055, wherein it has been held as follows at page 1062: "Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees to every person and not merely to the citizens of India the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. This is subject, in every case, to public order, health and morality. Further exceptions are engrafted upon this right by clause (2) of the article. This is subject, in every case, to public order, health and morality. Further exceptions are engrafted upon this right by clause (2) of the article. Sub-clause (a) of clause (2) saves the power of the State to make laws regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; and sub-clause (b) reserves the States power to make laws providing for social reform and social welfare even though they might interfere with religious practices. Thus, subject to the restrictions which this article imposes, every person has a fundamental right under our Constitution not merely to entertain such religious belief as may be approved of by his judgment or conscience but to exhibit his belief and ideas in such overt acts as are enjoined of sanctioned by his religion and further to propagate his religious views for the edification of others. It is immaterial also whether the propagation is made by a person in his individual capacity or on behalf of any church or institution. The free exercise of religion by which is meant, the performance of outward acts in pursuance of religious belief, is, as stated above, subject to State regulation imposed to secure order, public health and morals of the people. What sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of Article 25 contemplates is not State regulation of the religious practices as such which are protected unless they run counter to public health or morality but of activities which are really of an economic, commercial or political character though they are associated with religious practices." 28. This view was further reiterated by yet another Constitution Bench of the Honble Apex Court in the case of The Durgah Committee, Ajmer and another vs. Syed Hussain Ali and others, 1962 (Vol. 1) Supreme Court Reports 383, wherein it has been held as under at page 410: ".........Under Article 25(1), subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and their right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. 1) Supreme Court Reports 383, wherein it has been held as under at page 410: ".........Under Article 25(1), subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and their right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. This freedom guarantees to every citizen not only the right to entertain such religious belief as may appeal to his conscience but also affords him the right to exhibit his belief in his conduct by such outward acts as may appear to him proper in order to spread his ideas for the benefit of others....." 29. From the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, it emerges that religious rights not only of the citizens, but all other persons are fully protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India subject to the restrictions contained in the article itself. However, an allied question which also needs to be addressed to, is the extent of the right/protection. Whether every religious belief constitutes a right which cannot be tampered with or interfered with in any manner or does it refer to only such rights which are fundamental to the religious beliefs and practice and form integral part thereof? The issue is nomore resintegra having been considered and adjudicated upon by the Honble Apex Court in the famous judgment rendered in the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and others vs. State of Bihar, popularly Known as Quareshi-l, reported as A.I.R. 1958 Supreme Court 731. The question arose in this case was whether the Cow Slaughter on the Bakr-ld- Day is fundamental religious tenet of the Islam and constitutes an integral part of the religious belief of Mohammedans. While dealing with this question, the Honble Apex Court observed as under: "13............We have, however, no material on the record before us which will enable us to say, in the face of the foregoing facts, that the sacrifice of a cow on that day is an obligatory overt act for a Mussalman to exhibit his religious belief and idea. In the premises, it is not possible for us to uphold this claim of the petitioners." 30. This question was again considered in depth by the Constitution Bench of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR. In the premises, it is not possible for us to uphold this claim of the petitioners." 30. This question was again considered in depth by the Constitution Bench of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR. 1963 Supreme Court 1638, relying upon the case of Quareshi-I, the Court observed as under: "58. In deciding the question as to whether a given religious practice is an integral part of the religion or not, the test always would be whether it is regarded as such by the community following the religion or not....This question will always have to be decided by the Court and in doing so, the Court may have to enquire whether the practice in question is religious in character and if it is, whether it can be regarded as an integral or essential part of the religion, and the finding of the Court on such an issue will always depend upon the evidence adduced before it as to the conscience of the community and the tenets of its religion." 31. Similar view came to be expressed by another Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of His Holiness Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR. 1972 Supreme Court 1586, wherein it has been observed as follows: "12............The first is that the protection of these articles is not limited to matters of doctrine on belief they extend also to acts done in pursuance of reliaion and therefore contain a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of religion.The second is that what constitutes an essential partof areligious or religious practice has to be decided by the courts with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion and include practices which are regarded by the community as a part of its religion " 32. This view has been further reitereted in the case of State of West Bengal, eto. etc. vs. Ashutosh Lahiri and others, A.I.R. 1995 Supreme Court 464, wherein it is observed as under: "8.........The sacrifice established for one person is a goat and that for seven a cow or a camel. It is, therefore, optional for a Muslim to sacrifice a goal for one person or a cow or a camel for seven persons. etc. vs. Ashutosh Lahiri and others, A.I.R. 1995 Supreme Court 464, wherein it is observed as under: "8.........The sacrifice established for one person is a goat and that for seven a cow or a camel. It is, therefore, optional for a Muslim to sacrifice a goal for one person or a cow or a camel for seven persons. It does not appear to be obligatory that a person must sacrifice a cow. Once the religious purpose of Muslim consists of making sacrifice of any animal which should be a healthy animal, on Bakri Idd, then slaughtering of cow is not only way of carrying out that sacrifice. It is, therefore, obviously not an essential religious purpose but an optional one......." 33. In the case of Lily Thomas etc. vs. Union of India and others, AIR. 2000 Supreme Court 1650, a question came to be considered whether a Muslim has a fundamental religious right to contract more than one marriages and whether the service rules imposing restriction on such right of a public servant to contract second marriage during the life time of the first spouse, is constitutionally invalid in view of the protection afforded under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court answered this question in negative and observed as under: "61. The grievance that the judgment of the Court amounts to violation of the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation or religion also far fetched and apparently artificially carved out by such persons who are alleged to have violated the law by attempting to cloak themselves under the protective fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. No person, by the judgment impugned, has been denied the freedom of conscience and propagation of religion 34. Another order dated October 04, 2005, passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 290 of 1999, has been brought to my notice. In this case, one Harvinder Singh LAC, a Member of the Indian Air Force, Sikh gentleman, applied to keep the beard flowing on religious grounds permanently. His request was rejected but he insisted in keeping his beard flowing which was contrary to the policy letter dated 01.04.2003 and other guidelines. After issuing Show Cause Notice to him, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969. He was discharged from service on 01.09.1997. His request was rejected but he insisted in keeping his beard flowing which was contrary to the policy letter dated 01.04.2003 and other guidelines. After issuing Show Cause Notice to him, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969. He was discharged from service on 01.09.1997. The order of discharge was challenged in Writ Petition No. 290 of 1999 under Article 332 of the Constitution of India before the Honble Supreme Court of India. The said writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dated October 04,2005, which reads as under: