Poland’s Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of a Sikh who argued his rights were violated during a search by the country’s Border Guard at Warsaw Chopin Airport.

Shaminder Puri was passing through security control at the airport when he was flagged aside and subjected to a manual search of his person and belongings. During the search, the officers told Mr. Puri to remove his turban, something the Sikh found particularly disturbing.

An unlawful search?

Mr. Puri brought a complaint before the Polish courts, first at the regional level and, after his case was dismissed, at an appellate court, claiming the search violated his rights. In February 2013, the appeals court in Warsaw affirmed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the case.

The judgment stated that while a violation of personal rights of the plaintiff took place, it did not rise to a criminal level. The Board Guard officers who ordered the Sikh to remove his turban had acted within the limits of their powers under the provisions of the law. The court considered the removal of turban as the only possible way to properly check if there were forbidden objects in the head covering.

Coercive power of officers

In his application to the Supreme Court, Mr. Puri’s counsel noted that considering the issues of human rights protection and rule of law, this case reflects a significant legal issue. It concerns the competence of courts to review the proportionality of the coercive power used by officers toward citizens, and the problem that exists in cases when the use of power, and the manner in which this power is exercised, may not be challenged in administrative court.

“Such an approach may result in the deprivation of the applicant's right to the court,” explained Karolina Rusiłowicz, a lawyer for HFHR. “The Supreme Court, however, did not share this view.”

According to the Supreme Court, every traveler has to understand the fact that he or she can be subjected to manual search and personal control regardless of religion, nationality or ethnic origin. However, as the Supreme Court did note that in such a situation, the personal rights must yield to more important values, such as the life and health of the citizens of a given country.

Supreme Court ignores religious freedom argument

The Court did not consider the applicant’s argument that the Border Guard officers acted against the law – in a disproportionate manner, without due respect for his dignity, right to free exercise of religion and for freedom of movement. The officers had a range of less invading methods of conducting the control, still without a legitimate need they used the most oppressive one.

“In the oral explanation of the judgment, the Supreme Court did not relate to the freedom of religion and respect for the religious symbols in any way. Once we know the written justification of the judgment, we will be considering an application to the European Court of Human Rights,” said Dr. Adam Bodnar, deputy president of the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights.