Transfers are routine in the Indian bureaucracy, so routine that some officers wear the number like a badge of honour. Ashok Khemka, for instance, was transferred 57 times in 34 years as a Haryana IAS officer, mostly for digging into corruption that others wanted left alone. However, Bushra Bano’s case is much different.

On September 14, IPS officer Bushra Bano was transferred from her post as Additional Superintendent of Police in Kharagpur to Deputy Commandant of the State Armed Police. The West Bengal government described the move as a routine administrative transfer and cited ‘public interest’. But the timing has raised questions because, just days earlier, Bano had faced online criticism over a video in which she used the terms ‘assalamualaikum‘, ‘inshallah‘ and ‘jazakallah‘.

The controversy began after an X account called Hindu Legal Fund objected to the use of these terms in her video. The account alleged that a serving officer representing the State should maintain ‘neutrality’ and use expressions such as ‘Jai Hind‘ or ‘Vande Mataram‘.

This raises a question: was Bano transferred because her religious expression was seen as incompatible with the neutrality expected of a government officer?

The real question is not whether an IPS officer can say ‘assalamualaikum’. It is what we mean when we ask a public servant to be ‘neutral’.

While Hindutva accounts like the Hindu Legal Fund say Bano’s words were the problem, the Constitution says something else entirely. Nowhere does the Constitution state that a government servant must greet people in a certain way. What it does say is that no citizen can be punished for practising their faith; therefore, no public servant can be treated differently because of it. That is not an opinion; it is law. The State has to be secular. The citizen does not have to be.

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law. This means the same standards should apply to public servants, regardless of their religion. Article 16(1) guarantees equality in public employment. If an officer faces adverse action because of her religious identity or expression, it raises a question about equal treatment in public employment.

The Supreme Court’s decision in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India gives this principle a wider meaning. The Court recognised secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution and held that the State must remain neutral and treat all religions equally. This principle suggests that neutrality does not require an officer to hide her religious identity.

Article 25 protects freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. Words such as ‘assalamualaikum‘, ‘inshallah‘ and ‘jazakallah‘ can be seen as ordinary expressions of personal faith. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala also shows the importance of protecting religious conscience. The case was not about public servants, but the Court recognised that a person should not have to give up their religious beliefs to be a good citizen.

Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech. Bushra Bano’s video was about her UPSC journey and encouraging students to join the civil services. The religious expressions were part of that message, not a religious or political appeal. Any restriction on her speech must also fall within the grounds permitted under Article 19(2). As the Supreme Court held in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, speech cannot be restricted without constitutionally recognised grounds for doing so.

IPS officers like Bushra Bano are governed by the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. These rules require officers to remain politically neutral and act fairly and impartially in the discharge of their official duties. However, nothing in these rules prohibits an officer from using an ordinary religious greeting.

The law on transfers is also important here. In Union of India v. S.L. Abbas and State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, the Supreme Court held that transfers are a normal part of government service and that courts should usually not interfere with such decisions. However, a transfer can be challenged if it is shown to be mala fide (in bad faith), contrary to law, or otherwise improper. The West Bengal government has described Bano’s transfer as being in ‘public interest’. However, it has not been established whether her religious expression played any role in the decision.

No government order or official statement has described Bano’s transfer as a disciplinary action, and no inquiry has found her guilty of misconduct. That leaves a central question unanswered: if her religious expression had nothing to do with the transfer, what was the administrative reason for moving her now? And if her religious expression did play a role, what rule did she actually break?

Under the Constitution, all citizens have equal rights, irrespective of their religion. While uniformed officers are required to remain strictly impartial and show no religious favouritism, the same yardstick is not always applied evenly. Public images and videos circulating on social media frequently show police officers in Uttar Pradesh wearing tilaks, chanting ‘Jai Shree Ram‘, and appearing at religious events, which raises the question of whether merely using a religious greeting automatically means that an officer is biased.

The above-stated examples alone do not, by themselves, establish that those officers have violated any service rule. But it does raise a fair question: why is one religious expression treated as acceptable while another becomes evidence of bias?

The above-stated examples alone do not, by themselves, establish that those officers have violated any service rule. But it does raise a fair question: why is one religious expression treated as acceptable while another becomes evidence of bias?

Take, for example, C.V. Anand, who took charge as Telangana’s DGP amid Vedic chanting performed by priests at the DGP’s office. This raises questions about where the line is drawn between personal and institutional religious expression and official neutrality.

There’s also the case of officer Anuj Chaudhary, who took part in a religious procession in uniform while carrying a mace. He said that carrying the mace was not a crime. But notice the pattern here: carrying a religious object while in uniform is treated as a matter of personal faith and holding a religious ceremony at government offices is also considered a matter of personal faith, but a Muslim officer saying ‘inshallah‘ becomes a question of religious neutrality. There were also allegations concerning Chaudhary’s conduct and language towards Muslims, but no serious consequences arose out of this, and he was later promoted.

Public officials do not have to give up their religion to remain neutral. On the other hand, the state must treat every citizen equally, without discrimination based on religion. Bano should never have had to choose between being Muslim and being Indian, because both can coexist. The real question is whether the state made her feel that she had to choose between the two.

The question is simple: should an officer be judged by her faith or by how she serves the Constitution and the people?

If overtly religious expressions, such as Vedic chants, wearing a tilak, or participating in Hindu religious ceremonies, by police officers can be viewed as matters of personal faith, the same constitutional standard must apply to an officer using ordinary expressions of her own faith.

A secular state must not favour one religion over another. But being secular does not mean that public officials have to hide every ordinary expression of their faith. The question is simple: should an officer be judged by her faith or by how she serves the Constitution and the people?