Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P.
Background
The appellant, an Irrigation Supervisor in the U.P. Government, was removed from service after a departmental inquiry found that he had contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting, without the Government's permission, violating Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. He claimed he had divorced his first wife before remarrying, but his first wife herself testified in the inquiry that the marriage was never dissolved, and the appellant had earlier admitted to a Human Rights Commission inquiry that both wives were living with him. The Allahabad High Court upheld the removal, and the appellant approached the Supreme Court, also challenging the Conduct Rule itself as violating his fundamental right to freely practise religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held there was ample evidence, the appellant's own admissions, his first wife's testimony, and the absence of any divorce record, to support the finding that he had committed bigamy in violation of the Conduct Rules, and found no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the disciplinary authority and the High Court. On the constitutional question, relying on its earlier decision in Javed vs. State of Haryana, the Court reaffirmed that Article 25 protects religious faith and belief, not every religious practice, and that polygamy, even where permitted under personal religious law, is not a mandatory religious practice and can be regulated or restricted by the State as a matter of social reform, public order or morality. The Court held the Conduct Rule requiring government permission before a second marriage did not violate Article 25 for any religious community, and that removal was not a disproportionate punishment.
Lesson Learnt
Government service rules that require permission before contracting another marriage during a subsisting one are constitutionally valid: a practice being merely "permitted" under one's personal religious law does not make it a protected religious right that can override a civil service conduct rule.