Muslim prison officer to be promoted as judge rules officers can wear beards

AN INTERNAL prison service policy which prevented Muslim officers from wearing facial hair has been deemed unconstitutional by a High Court judge.

As a result, acting Commissioner of Prisons Deopersad Ramoutar has been ordered to promote prison officer Arshad Singh to the substantive post of prison officer II forthwith.

The order was given by Justice Margaret Mohammed on February 20, when she ruled that the commissioner’s failure to promote Singh because of his beard was unlawful.

Singh, who contended that his beard was based on his religious belief as a practising Muslim, will also receive compensation for the breaches of his rights.

In her ruling, Mohammed declared the three orders – one of which dated back to 1970 – unconstitutional, null and void. She also ordered that they be struck out. The rules prohibited prison officers from growing a beard unless they get permission from the commissioner.

In her ruling, Mohammed declared that the three prison service orders – one of which dated back to 1970 – which all prevented prison officers from wearing facial hair because they were Muslims were unconstitutional, null and void. She also ordered that they be struck out.

The judge further declared that Singh was entitled to wear his beard as a practising Muslim and ordered that he be allowed to wear it neatly groomed while on duty.

Mohammed also quashed the commissioner’s decision on September 23, 2022, not to promote Singh because of his facial hair although he was called out to receive his instrument of appointment at a promotion ceremony.

Mohammed held that no policy or procedure of the prison service can limit an individual’s rights under the Constitution.

Singh had filed a judicial review claim and a constitutional claim which challenged the commissioner’s decision which, he said, caused him great embarrassment after he was told to leave the promotion ceremony because of his beard.

At the end of the trial before Mohammed, the commissioner’s attorneys conceded that the decision not to promote Singh was unreasonable. Damages were ordered to be assessed by a High Court master for the reliefs automatically granted to Singh.

The judge then went on the determine if the prison officer’s rights, as a practising Muslim, were infringed by the commissioner’s refusal to keep his beard although he sought permission to do so. The State alleged the commissioner did not receive Singh’s letter for permission.

Exemptions for prison officers to keep their facial hair are only given for medical and security reasons but not religious grounds.

It was also argued by the State that the commissioner’s justification for the provisions which bar the wearing of a beard without permission was to ensure uniformity, instil discipline amongst the ranks of the prison service at military standards and ensure tidiness and cleanliness.

“In my opinion, there is no merit in the reasons which the commissioner has put forward to justify the bar on the wearing of facial hair by Muslim prison officers,” the judge ruled.

“I accept that the TTPS is entitled to make policies and procedures to instil discipline, uniformity, tidiness and cleanliness of prison officers in the conduct of their duties.

“Indeed such policies and procedures are laudable.”

However, the judge said those policies could not limit or restrict any prison officer’s guaranteed right to practice and observe their religion.

In her ruling, the judge referred to other cases involving Muslim prisoners as well as police officers, in particular Sharon Roop, who was successful in her challenge over her hijab. To the former, she said while she accepted that officers and prisoners were governed by different rules, “it was absurd” that the rules allowed Muslim prisoners to wear facial hair but prohibited prison officers.

She said it was her opinion that both groups were to be treated the same as they were all entitled to the right of freedom of conscience and religious belief and observance.

“As a consequence, just as the commissioner permits male Muslim prisoners the right to wear facial hair, in like manner he also has a duty to treat the male Muslim prison officers similarly and permit them to wear facial hair during their employment.”

As she considered whether to award vindicatory damages, the judge said she was “astounded” that the commissioner, as a public official, chose to apply a policy which breached a Muslim prison officer’s right under the Constitution.

She said after the judgment in Roop, the prison service should have taken steps to amend the general orders taking into account the court’s guidance. In her case, Roop had argued that she wrote to the then police commissioner asking to wear a hijab but it was ignored for two years. Mohammed had ruled that Roop’s constitutional rights had been infringed by the denial to allow her to wear her hijab while in uniform.

The judge also struck down the long-standing rule against the head-wear by law enforcement officers.

In Singh’s case, she said although the commissioner stated that the prison service did not discriminate on religious grounds as activities were held for prisoners and officers, his “actions were the intentional application of general orders” which were discriminating on religious grounds.

She said an individual’s rights to freedom of conscience and religious belief and observance and equality of treatment by a public authority were important and were guaranteed by the Constitution in a multi-religious society.

It was only two weeks ago that a Muslim police officer lost his legal challenge over a police service policy preventing him from wearing his beard.

Singh was represented by attorneys Sunil Gopaul-Gosine and Imran Khan while Coreen Findley, Janique Mitchell, Kristyn Lewis and Akeenie Murray represented the State.