Transfers are routine in India’s bureaucracy, so routine that some officials wear the number like a badge of honor. Ashok KhemkaFor example, in 34 years as an IAS officer in Haryana, he was transferred 57 times, mainly because he dealt with corruption that others wanted to leave alone. However, the case of Bushra Bano is very different.
On September 14, IPS officer Bushra Bano was transferred from her post as Additional Superintendent of Police, Kharagpur to Deputy Commandant, State Armed Police. The West Bengal government termed the move as a routine administrative transfer citing “public interest”. But the timing raises questions because just a few days earlier, Bano had been criticized online for 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 report claimed that a sitting officer representing the state should maintain “neutrality” and use expressions like “Jai Hind” or “Vande Mataram”.
A complaint has been lodged with the Home Minister of West Bengal regarding IPS Bushra Bano’s official video statement.
She started with Assalamualaikum, used Inshallah, ended with Jazakallah – and used neither Vande Mataram nor Jai Hind.
A serving civil servant representing the Indian state should…
— Hindu Legal Fund (@HinduLegalFund) September 13, 2026
This begs the question: Was Bano transferred because her religious expression was seen as incompatible with the neutrality expected of a government official?
Beyond the welcome: the constitutional limits of official neutrality
The real question is not whether an IPS officer can say “assalamualaikum”. This is what we mean when we ask an official to be “neutral.”
While Hindutva accounts like the Hindu Legal Fund say Bano’s words were the problemthe Constitution says something completely different. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a government official must greet people in a certain way. It states that no citizen can be punished for practicing his or her faith; Therefore, no official can be treated differently because of this. This is not an opinion; it is law. The state must be secular. It doesn’t have to be the citizen.
Article 14 guarantees equality before the law. This means that public servants should be held to the same standards regardless of their religion. Article 16(1) guarantees equality in public service. If a civil servant is confronted with punitive measures because of her religious identity or practice, this raises questions about equal treatment in the public service.
The Supreme Court’s decision in SR Bommai v. Union of India gives this principle a broader meaning. The court recognized secularism as a fundamental feature of the constitution and ruled that the state must remain neutral and treat all religions equally. This principle suggests that neutrality does not require an official to hide his or her religious identity.
Article 25 protects freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate a religion, subject to public order, morals and health. Words such as “assalamualaikum,” “inshallah,” and “jazakallah” can be viewed as common expressions of personal faith. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bijoe Emmanuel vs Kerala State also shows how important it is to protect religious conscience. The case was not about officials, but the court recognized that a person should not give up his religious beliefs in order to be a good citizen.
Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of expression. Bushra Bano’s video was about her UPSC journey and encouraging students to join public services. The religious statements were part of that message, not a religious or political appeal. Any restriction on their expression must also fall within the grounds permitted under Article 19(2). As the Supreme Court noted Shreya Singhal v. Union of IndiaExpression of opinion cannot be restricted without constitutionally recognized reasons.
IPS officers like Bushra Bano are governed by the government All India Services (Code of Conduct), 1968. These rules require that officials remain politically neutral and act fairly and impartially in the performance of their official duties. However, nothing in these rules prohibits an officer from using an ordinary religious greeting.
Was this a normal transfer?
The right to transfer is also important here. In Union of India v. SL Abbas And State of UP vs Gobardhan LalThe Supreme Court ruled that transfers were a normal part of civil service and that courts should not normally interfere with such decisions. However, a transfer may be challenged if it is found to be in bad faith (bad faith), unlawful or otherwise improper. The West Bengal government described Bano’s transfer as “in public interest”. However, it is not clear whether their religious expression played a role in the decision.
No government order or official statement has described Bano’s transfer as a disciplinary measure and no investigation has found her guilty of wrongdoing. This leaves a central question unanswered: If their religious expression had nothing to do with the transfer, then what was the administrative reason for their move? And if her religious expression played a role, what rule did she actually break?
Do the same standards apply to everyone?
According to the constitution, all citizens have equal rights, regardless of their religion. While uniformed officers remain strictly impartial and are not required to show religious favoritism, this standard is not always applied evenly. Public images and videos shared on social media often show police officers in Uttar Pradesh wearing tilaks, chanting “Jai Shree Ram” and performing at religious events. This raises the question of whether the sole use of a religious greeting automatically means an officer is biased.
The above examples alone do not prove that these officials have violated an official rule. But it raises a legitimate question: Why is one religious expression considered acceptable while another becomes evidence of bias?
The above examples alone do not prove that these officials have violated an official rule. But it raises a legitimate question: Why is one religious expression considered acceptable while another becomes evidence of bias?
Let’s take for example CV Anandwho took over as DGP of Telangana amidst Vedic chants performed by priests in the DGP’s office. This raises the question of where the line is drawn between personal and institutional religious expression and official neutrality.
There is also the case of an officer Anuj Chaudharywho took part in a religious procession in uniform and with a club. He said carrying the mace was not a crime. But notice the pattern here: wearing a religious item in uniform is treated as a matter of personal belief, and holding a religious ceremony in government offices is also considered a matter of personal belief, but a Muslim official saying “Inshallah” becomes a matter of religious neutrality. There were also allegations about Chaudhary’s behavior and language towards Muslims, but no serious consequences arose and he was later promoted.
The true test of neutrality
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 never had to choose between Muslim and Indian because both can coexist. The real question is whether the state made her feel like she had to choose between the two.
The question is simple: Should a public official be judged by her faith or by how she serves the Constitution and the people?
If overtly religious expressions by police officers, such as Vedic chants, wearing a tilak, or participation in Hindu religious ceremonies, can be viewed as matters of personal belief, the same constitutional standard must apply to an officer using ordinary expressions of her own faith.
A secular state must not favor one religion over another. But being secular does not mean that officials must hide every ordinary expression of their faith. The question is simple: Should a public official be judged by her faith or by how she serves the Constitution and the people?
Aradhana Singh is an LL.B. in the third year. Student at GJ Advani Law College, University of Mumbai. Her writing focuses on constitutional law, gender equality, criminal law and the impact of technology on rights and society. Her passion lies in making legal topics accessible through research-based public writing.
