By Augusten Blah
The ceremonial traditions of a democratic nation serve as the visual language of its sovereignty, history, and constitutional values. Among these, the guard of honour stands out as one of the most rigorous and revered ceremonial displays of institutional respect. Historically and legally, this protocol involves a highly disciplined unit composed of military or police personnel forming a parallel corridor to salute, escort, or render formal courtesies to designated dignitaries. Because the gesture involves the deployment of state resources, armed personnel, and the symbolic authority of the sovereign state, the regulations governing it are precise, non-negotiable, and strictly bound by statutory frameworks.
In India’s constitutional setup, a formal police or military guard of honour is not a standard civilian greeting; it is an exclusive state privilege. According to the codified frameworks managed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, individual State Police Manuals, and internal Security Standing Orders, the honour is strictly confined to a select tier of constitutional authorities. These include the Head of State, the Head of Government, Governors, Union and State Cabinet Ministers, and top-ranking military or judicial officials. These boundaries ensure that the deployment of uniformed forces remains directly tethered to official public office, rather than personal prominence, private achievement, or community standing.
When unauthorized deviations occur, they create an immediate conflict with codified statutory frameworks. This friction was brought into sharp public focus during the December 2025 incident in Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh, where an official parade was organized on the Reserve Police Lines ground for spiritual speaker Pundrik Goswami, drawing an immediate demand for an official explanation from the state’s Director General of Police (DGP). Similarly, public debates erupted in October 2026 when videos circulated of religious figure Dhirendra Krishna Shastri receiving a guard of honour from security personnel during a visit to Maihar, Madhya Pradesh. For members of the Indian Police Service (IPS) and state law enforcement agencies, these actions directly intersect with the strict boundaries of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules and equivalent State Civil Services Conduct Rules. Rule 3 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules explicitly mandates that every member of the service must maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty, and do nothing which is unbecoming of a member of the service. Deploying active-duty personnel, using state training grounds, or executing formal drill commands for non-sanctioned events constitutes a procedural breach of these conduct rules, transforming a formal state ritual into administrative misconduct.
Furthermore, individual state police manuals such as the Police Standing Orders and institutional Drill Manuals explicitly enumerate the specific occasions and exact ranks entitled to ceremonial courtesies. These manuals state that a ceremonial guard is mounted strictly to exercise men in ceremonial drill, instill the highest standard of discipline, and pay compliments exclusively to high-ranking constitutional or force officers. Under administrative law, a local police officer who unilaterally orders a platoon to line up, present arms, or march for a private individual is executing an order that lacks legal sanction, bypassing the rigid chain of command that governs uniformed institutions.
From a broader constitutional perspective, utilizing uniformed government personnel to render formal protocol salutes to private religious figures places state neutrality under intense scrutiny. In a secular republic, government machinery and law enforcement bodies are mandated to maintain absolute institutional neutrality. While the Constitution guarantees individual citizens the freedom of conscience and the right to practice their faith, state protocols belong exclusively to the public offices that represent the entire populace. Uniformed services represent the objective authority of the Constitution, and personal preferences or private deference cannot supersede official state protocol.
This analysis serves as an urgent and definitive reminder to the concerned authorities specifically the Ministry of Home Affairs, State Home Departments, and Directors General of Police that such unauthorized ceremonial lapses must never happen again. Localized lapses cannot be dismissed as minor administrative oversteps or simple gestures of traditional hospitality. When field commanders treat state protocols as tools for personal or localized accommodation, they dilute the dignity of the uniform, disrupt institutional hierarchy, and misallocate public resources. It is incumbent upon the top oversight authorities to issue strict, non-negotiable directives across all administrative districts, establishing that any future deviation from the Table of Precedence will result in immediate suspension, disciplinary inquiries, and severe penalties for dereliction of duty. Upholding these boundaries is an essential safeguard to ensure that the symbolic honors of the state remain permanently and exclusively aligned with the constitutional offices they were created to respect. Maintaining an unwavering adherence to codified protocol preserves the discipline of law enforcement agencies and reinforces the public’s trust in the secular, rule-based governance of the nation.
