MP High Court Directs State Human Rights Panel To Decide Muslim Woman's Plea Alleging Police Shaved Husband's Beard & Paraded Him

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State Human Rights Commission to decide a muslim woman's plea alleging police misconduct during her husband's arrest including "forcefully shaving his beard and parading" him on the street.

The court noted that the petitioner had made an "innocuous prayer" to direct the Chairman, M.P. Human Rights Commission (MPHRC) to consider and decide her pending application expeditiously.

After the State's counsel submitted his no objection to this prayer, Justice Vishal Mishra in his order said:

"In such circumstances, this petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a certified copy of this order to the respondent No.10 (MPHRC) who, in turn, is directed to consider and decide the pending application of the petitioner which is the part of Annexure P/4 at Page 27 of the writ petition, as expeditiously as possible. Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case". 

According to the woman's petition, her husband was arrested on May 8 during a joint operation conducted by the Crime Branch, Mangalwara and Hanumanganj Police Stations along with three associates. Two separate FIRs were registered by two police stations against them under BNS Sections 119(1)(Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal act), 115(Voluntarily causing hurt), 351(3) (Criminal intimidation), 249(Harbouring offender), 191(Rioting), 125(Act endangering life or personal safety of others) along with various provisions of the Arms Act.

In her plea, the wife has stated that the alleged actions of the police, "especially forcefully shaving his beard and parading him and other accused in the streets and market", violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. 

"That the forcible shaving of the petitioner no.2's beard, a religious practice for Muslims, violates his right to freely practice his religion under Article 25", the petition stated. 

The wife claimed that such actions amounts to "public shaming", which is not sanctioned under any criminal procedure and are contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in multiple judgments. 

Her petition states that the inhuman act done by the "police officials violates fundamental rights of petitioner and other co-accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India". 

Despite this, the wife alleged that no inquiry or action had been initiated by the police authorities. She claims that she had filed a formal complaint before the senior authorities seeking action against the responsible officers. 

Case Title: Shamim Bano v State of MP & others (WP-24732-2025)

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Prashant Chourasia

Counsel for Respondent: Government Advocate Sumit Raghuwanshi

Click here to read the Order