Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has warned the management of V Bazar against compelling employees to wear Santa Claus caps, observing that such instructions interfere with their freedom to follow their faith and disturb harmony at the workplace.
Justice Saurabh Srivastava made the observations in Vikram Singh @ Vishwa Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. and Another, decided on September 10. The court granted the applicant limited procedural relief but expressly warned him and his superiors against repeating the instructions.
The proceedings arose from a case registered at Sadar Bazar police station in Agra in 2022 under Sections 298 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. These provisions concern deliberate wounding of religious feelings and intentional insult intended to provoke a breach of the peace, respectively.
The applicant had challenged the chargesheet dated September 20, 2023, the cognizance and summoning order dated December 21, 2023, and the consequential criminal proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.
His counsel confined the challenge to a procedural defect. Both offences were non-cognizable, and the police report therefore had to be treated as a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate, counsel argued, could not proceed with it as a police case. Although the State opposed the application, it did not dispute this legal submission.
Accepting the argument, the High Court held that the Magistrate had erred in taking cognizance in that manner. The statutory explanation treats a police report disclosing a non-cognizable offence after investigation as a complaint, with the reporting police officer deemed to be the complainant.
The court consequently set aside the summoning order insofar as it concerned the applicant and partly allowed his application. It nevertheless left the competent court free to proceed by treating the matter as a complaint case, in accordance with law.
The order did not end with the procedural issue.
Examining the documents accompanying the application, Justice Srivastava recorded that V Bazar’s superior authorities had created compulsion for employees to wear Santa Claus red caps. The court observed that this hurt sentiments associated with different faiths and beliefs and was impermissible in a democratic country where citizens were free to follow their religion.
It warned the applicant and his superior authorities against repeating instructions that disturbed the peaceful and harmonious atmosphere among employees. This warning formed part of the written order itself.
The distinction between the two parts of the ruling is significant. The applicant obtained relief because the prescribed criminal procedure had not been followed. That relief did not amount to judicial approval of the workplace instruction, nor did it foreclose further proceedings through the proper route.
The court’s objection was directed at compulsion. It did not impose a general prohibition on Christmas celebrations or voluntary participation by employees. Its warning concerned management using workplace authority to require conduct that conflicted with employees’ faith.
For employers, the order carries a straightforward message: workplace instructions must respect the religious beliefs of those expected to obey them. A procedural defect in prosecution does not give management permission to repeat the conduct that brought the dispute to court.
