The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine whether wearing turbans is an integral part of Sikhism, after a Delhi-based cycling enthusiast challenged a local association's rule that mandated that a cyclist must wear a helmet to participate in its championships irrespective of religion.
Delhi-based cyclist Jagdeep Singh Puri (50) moved the petition with the plea that he cannot wear a helmet because it’s mandatory for him to wear a turban as per the Sikh religion.
A bench of justices SA Bodbe and LN Rao wondered whether wearing a turban was necessary under the religion or just covering one’s head was. They referred to sportspersons from the Sikh community who didn’t wear turbans while participating in games.
"We have sympathy for the cause. But have you showed us anything that makes it mandatory under Sikh religion to wear a turban only?" Justice S.A. Bobde, heading a bench that also had Justice L. Nageswara Rao, told senior advocate R.S. Suri, appearing for Jagdeep Singh Puri.
Jagdeep Singh Puri #Turbanators cycled solo 510kms,Delhi to Gdw.Dera Baba Nanak,India-Pakistan border,tribute to Indian forces. #indiagate pic.twitter.com/T4t0a7t4I2
— Cycle Diaries (@cyclediary) August 24, 2017
The lawyer told the bench that the Central Motor Vehicle Act grants exemption to Sikhs from wearing helmets while driving a two-wheeler. In several foreign countries such as the UK and US, members of other communities, including Sikhs, have been permitted to wear turbans while playing sports in keeping with their religious beliefs.
But, the bench gave example of Milkha Singh and Bishan Singh Bedi.
"Bishan Singh Bedi played cricket while simply covering his head. He never wore a turban. And what do soldiers do in battles? Don't they wear helmets? You basically need to define what is a turban.
"Great sportspersons have never worn a turban... take Milkha Singh also. It seems to us that wearing a turban is not mandatory but covering your head is," Justice Bobde added.
Justice Bobde said there was no harm in wearing a helmet if it was for one’s safety. “Why don’t you wear it? Why do you want to risk your head? Here you are undertaking a cycling competition. You can smash your head and then you will allege the organisers are not following safety standards,” the judge said.
Fixing April 23 to hear Puri’s petition again, the bench asked Suri to get an authority on turbans.The court also asked senior advocate CU Singh to assist in the matter.
"You show us any authority on whether the turban is mandatory before we decide to issue a notice. We will hear you on Monday.
"We also want to know that does it actually offend your religion if you do not wear it? Show where is it written."
Justice Bobde said that if certain rules had been laid down by the cycling association, it was for the safety of the participants. "You can smash your head and then you will allege against the organisers," the court said.
Petitioner Puri moved the apex court after he was disqualified from the Azad Hind Brevet (long-distance cycling) organised by the Audax India Randonneurs in August 2015.
Puri, a graphic designer by profession, moved the SC after he was disqualified from the Azad Hind Brevet (long distance cycling) organized by Audax India Randonneurs (AIR), after he refused to wear to helmet since he was wearing a turban. He complained that the rule violated his fundamental right to practise and profess one’s own religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.
