Family Law

Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Civil Appeal No. 1662 of 2015

Facts

Khursheed Ahmad Khan was employed as an Irrigation Supervisor under the Uttar Pradesh Government.
He was already married to Sabina Begum.
During the subsistence of that marriage, he contracted another marriage with Anjum Begum.
Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules prohibited a government servant with a living spouse from contracting another marriage without prior permission.
The department alleged that:
he had not divorced his first wife;
he had married again without permission; and
he had supplied misleading information regarding the alleged divorce.
The first wife testified that no divorce had taken place.
The service records continued to identify her as his wife.
Departmental proceedings resulted in his removal from service.
He challenged both the factual finding and the constitutional validity of the conduct rule.

Whether the second marriage during the subsistence of the first violated the service conduct rules.
Whether restricting a Muslim government servant from practising polygamy violated Article 25.

Article 25 protects freedom of conscience and essential religious belief and practice.
It does not constitutionally protect every act merely permitted by personal law.
A distinction exists between:
something commanded or integral to religion; and
something merely permitted but not obligatory.
Polygamy is not an essential or mandatory religious practice in Islam.
The State may regulate marriage in the interests of:
social welfare;
discipline in public service;
morality; and
reform.
Government service rules may impose standards stricter than the bare permissions available under personal law.
Judicial review of disciplinary findings is limited where the findings are supported by evidence.

The Court first examined whether the first marriage had been dissolved.
There was no reliable evidence of divorce:
no prior departmental intimation existed;
the first wife denied the alleged divorce;
she remained named as wife in official records;
the appellant had earlier admitted that both wives were living with him.
The disciplinary conclusion that the first marriage continued was therefore neither perverse nor unreasonable.
The second marriage, contracted without governmental permission, directly violated Rule 29.
The constitutional challenge was also rejected.
The Court explained that Muslim law may permit more than one wife subject to conditions, but permission is not equivalent to a religious obligation.
Islam did not compel the appellant to marry a second time.
Therefore, the conduct rule did not prevent him from professing or practising an essential aspect of his faith.
The Court relied on the principle that monogamy may legitimately be promoted as a measure of social reform.
A civil servant voluntarily enters a regulated service and becomes subject to conduct requirements designed to maintain discipline and public standards.
Personal law did not give him an overriding constitutional right to disregard those conditions.
The punishment of removal was also upheld because:
the misconduct was proved;
misleading information had been supplied;
and the penalty was not shockingly disproportionate.

The appeal was dismissed.
The finding that the appellant contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of the first was upheld.
Rule 29 did not violate Article 25.
Polygamy, though permitted under Muslim personal law, was not an essential religious practice immune from State regulation.
The removal from service was sustained.
Use this case for: a government servant cannot claim Article 25 protection for polygamy merely because Muslim personal law permits plural marriage.