TTPS beard ban ruled unconstitutional

2026-01-30 - 16:59

JENSEN LA VENDE Senior Reporter jensen.lavende@guardian.co.tt The Appeal Court today has found that the police service restricting officers from having beards, particularly for religious reasons, is unconstitutional. Constable Kristian Khan appealed a High Court ruling that dismissed his challenged his claims against the police service which mandated that he cut his beard. Khan claimed that when he joined the TTPS in 2014, a senior officer instructed him to shave or obtain a medical exemption and he reluctantly complied. Khan presented the evidence of Islamic experts Mufti Abraar Alli and Mufti Wazim Khan. Both claimed that keeping a beard is a fundamental part of Islam. Khan also contended that shaving the beard is considered unlawful and impermissible by leading Islamic jurists. In their 40-page judgement today Appeal Court Judges Mark Mohammed, Maria Wilson and James Aboud found that there was no room for such a rule prohibiting the growing of beards in a multi-racial and multi-cultural society. “It is difficult to identify any justifiable public interest in a democratic society for policy that imposes a substantial restriction on the religious practices of individuals, namely, devout Muslim police officers. There is no identifiable or reasonably justifiable public interest question involved in whether a police officer with a “handlebar moustache” or sideburns (or either or both) is weakened when he performs his duties.” The judges found that the rules are reminiscent of the appearance of British soldiers at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in the 19th century adding that the academy lifted the rule in 2024. “It is however not the duty of any court to specify the length of a male Muslim police officer’s beard or whether or not a bearded police officer is, or is not, a practicing Muslim. Those delicate questions are best answered by the lawmakers in Parliament. Regulation 143(3)(b) cannot therefore be considered reasonably justifiable in a society that values and respects the rights and freedoms of individuals in a democratic society.” Khan’s rights under Sections 4(b) and 4(h) of the Constitution were breached the panel found adding that the TTPS, in threatening to discipline him for having a beard, contravened or was likely to contravene his constitutional rights. They found that High Court Judge Betsy-Ann Lambert-Peterson erred in determining that regulation 143(3)(b) was saved law under Section 6(1)(b). The trial judge’s finding that regulation 143(3)(b) was valid and immune from constitutional scrutiny under sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution is set aside. The panel also declared that regulation 143(3)(b) and Standing Order 6, section 5, are unconstitutional, invalid, and null and void to the extent that it makes no provision for the growing of a beard on religious grounds. Khan was represented by attorneys Anand Ramlogan, SC, and including Jayanti Lutchmedial, Kent Samlal, Natasha Bisram and Vishaal Siewsaran. This is not the first time the court has had to make amendments to the police service regulations. In 2018 Justice Margaret Mohammed, declared that the Police Service Regulations, 2007 was unconstitutional, invalid, null and void to the extent that it made no provision for the wearing of the hijab. The case was brought by constable Sharon Roop. In 2023, Justice Frank Seepersad found that the TTPS tattoo policy was “discriminatory and ill-advised”. Seepersad ruled against the TTPS in favour of recruit Dillon Ramraj who was disqualified because he had a tattoo on his left hand in or around the area between his thumb and his index finger. The tattoo depicted a small green shuriken, more commonly referred to as a ninja star. A year later Renaldo Marajh was awarded $400,000 after he sued the state for disqualifying him from entering the police service four years prior because of his height. He measured 160 centimetres (five feet, three inches), while the height requirement was 167 cm (five feet seven inches). Women were allowed entry if they measured at 150 cm (four feet, 11 inches). In his ruling Justice Robin Mohammed stated: “The effect of regulation 3(1) (f) is discriminatory as it imposes unequal treatment on similarly circumstanced individuals seeking to be recruited by the TTPS merely on the basis of their height and gender. The defendant has failed to advance any justification for the TTPS’ imposition of a height requirement or a gender specific height distinction as a pre-condition for recruitment into the Police Service.”