Image: The Globe and Mail
When Prabjot Singh Wirring was preparing to enter the legal profession in Alberta, he encountered a requirement that placed him at the centre of a constitutional and cultural debate. Like all prospective lawyers in the province, he was expected to swear an oath of allegiance to the reigning monarch, now King Charles III. For Wirring, an initiated Sikh, that oath posed a serious conflict with his religious beliefs.Rather than quietly comply or abandon his legal career, Wirring chose to challenge the rule in court. His case, first filed in 2022, ultimately reached the Alberta Court of Appeal. On December 16, 2025, the court ruled in his favour, concluding that the mandatory oath violated freedom of religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ordering the province to change the requirement.
Why a Sikh lawyer took Canada’s oath of allegiance to court
At the time, Alberta required all new lawyers to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch as a condition of being admitted to the bar. While similar oaths exist elsewhere in Canada, most provinces do not make them mandatory or allow alternative affirmations.Wirring argued that the requirement forced him to choose between his religious obligations and his ability to practise law. He maintained that this amounted to an infringement of his Charter right to freedom of religion. A lower court initially dismissed Wirring’s case in 2023, characterising the oath as largely symbolic and not a meaningful infringement on religious freedom. Wirring appealed that decision, taking the matter to Alberta’s highest court.In December 2025, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the earlier ruling. The judges found that the oath was not merely symbolic and that it placed a real and substantial burden on Wirring by conditioning his professional future on violating his faith.
What the court decided
The Court of Appeal ruled that the mandatory oath violated section 2(a) of the Charter, which protects freedom of conscience and religion. The court declared the requirement to be of no force or effect and ordered the province to fix the issue within 60 days.Judges suggested several possible remedies, including abolishing the oath altogether, making it optional, or amending its wording to remove compulsory allegiance to the monarch.
Who is Prabjot Singh Wirring
Prabjot Singh Wirring is a Canadian lawyer based in Edmonton, Alberta. He earned his law degree from Dalhousie University and was completing his articling requirements when the oath issue arose. Wirring is an Amritdhari Sikh, meaning he has formally undergone Sikh initiation and follows a strict religious code of conduct.As part of his faith, Wirring believes he can swear allegiance only to Akal Purakh, the timeless divine being in Sikhism. He argued that pledging “true allegiance” to the King would contradict a prior, absolute religious oath, something his faith does not permit.
Broader reactions and debate
The decision triggered strong reactions across Canada. Civil liberties organisations welcomed the ruling as a clear affirmation that religious freedom must not be compromised by professional requirements. Supporters argued that the judgment brought Alberta into line with other provinces and reflected Canada’s pluralistic society.Critics saw the ruling as an erosion of Canada’s constitutional traditions. They argued that as a constitutional monarchy operating under the Westminster system, legal authority ultimately flows from the Crown, making the oath a meaningful civic commitment rather than a symbolic gesture. Go to Source