The full court meet was called to discuss the issue of designating retired judges of the High Court as senior advocates. However, the CJI is learnt to have brought up the issue of Justice Yadav. “It is very much an ongoing issue and no decision has been made. The full court was just told that the meeting had taken place,” a source said.

Another source said that at the meeting Tuesday, the Collegium had told Justice Yadav that a public apology on record was needed to put the issue to rest. But he wanted to clarify from a public platform at a future date that his remarks had not been taken in the proper spirit.

Notably, it is now learnt that the Collegium will wait for a few days before deliberating on the next steps. The CJI is meanwhile in the process of discussing the issue with the full court is seen by those in the judicial circles as an indication of the Collegium’s seriousness of the issue and an attempt to “take the court into confidence” on the next steps.

What the Collegium can do is either transfer the judge or initiate an in-house inquiry. The process of an in-house inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act is a precursor to recommending the judge’s removal to the President.

It was while addressing an event organised by the VHP’s legal cell on December 8 on the premises of the Allahabad High Court, that Justice Yadav had targeted Muslims and framed the Uniform Civil Code as a Hindu versus Muslim debate where the former had brought in reforms while the latter had not.

“You have a misconception that if a law (UCC) is brought in, it will be against your Shariyat, your Islam and your Quran,” Justice Yadav said. “But I want to say one more thing… whether it is your personal law, our Hindu law, your Quran or whether it is our Gita, as I said we have addressed the ills (buraaiyan) in our practices… kamiyan thi, durust kar liye hain (the shortcomings have been addressed) …untouchability… sati, jauhar… female foeticide…we have addressed all those issues… Then why are you not doing away with this law… that while your first wife is there…you can have three wives… without her consent… that is not acceptable.”

Justice Yadav went on to say that Hinduism had the seeds of tolerance which Islam didn’t. He also said, “I have no hesitation in saying that this is Hindustan… and the country will run according to the majority who live in Hindustan.”

Related:

Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones

SC Collegium summons Allahabad HC Judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav over remarks on Muslims

Impeach the Judge, INDIA bloc set to move impeachment motion against HC judge who made communal hate-speeches

The post CJI Khanna apprises full court of SC on Collegium meeting with Justice Yadav appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Business Today reports that the Anti ‘urban-Naxals’ Bill was re-introduced in Maharashtra, CM stresses its ‘need’: Fadnavis said Chhatisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha have enacted Public Security Acts for effective prevention of unlawful activities, and banned 48 frontal organisations

On July 11, the Maharashtra government tabled the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024 on the penultimate day of just concluded session of the state assembly (Vidhan Sabha). The said bill, introduced by the state’s industries minister Uday Samant, was deemed to be brought in to stop the “proliferation of Urban Naxalism” in the state of Maharashtra. Introduced on the penultimate day of the Vidhan Sabha (State Assembly) Session, it is clearly aimed at granting anti-Constitutional powers to an already weaponised police force. As the Maharashtra state assembly got over on July 12, the said bill has not yet been passed.

It is to be noted that while the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill was being introduced avowedly to tackle “urban naxals”, the term has been in usage from the Indian ultra-right as politically stigmatising and defiling term used by proto-fascist forces to criminalise protest and dissent, jail writers, academicians, activists and opposition Leaders especially. The said weapon has been, even prior to the year 2014, has been weaponised against Adivasis and Dalits, who protest against the unjust anti-minority policies of the state.

As the bill became public, experts and lawyers referred to the same as draconian and a dangerous piece of legislation that is being brought in to further supress dissent and cause alarm amongst the citizenry. Notably, the justification being offered for bringing in the bill is that similar versions of the Public Security Act currently are currently in force in Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha. However, the state of Maharashtra already has the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA, 1999) under which several abusive prosecutions have been launched. Now, as this suppressive bill looms like a sword over the people of Maharashtra, the insistence of introducing more such that curb the rights of freedom of expression, movement, association (Article 19) and right to life (Article 21) and equality before the law (Article 14) in other states is no justification for Maharashtra, a rather progressive state, for enacting such a law.

Another reasoning that is being offered to bring in the MSPS Bill is that it will provide more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and organisations. However, with the newly enforced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 bringing in offenses such as “terrorist activities” (Section 113), “organised crimes” (Section 111) and “petty organised crimes” (Section 112) into the criminal laws governing the country, a separate MSPS bill was not required at all. Through the BNS, provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and MCOCA have already been centralised, ensuring multiple tools in the land of a State and Police to use against its own citizens, raising questions over the necessity of bringing in the said bill.

Citizens for Justice and Peace, Mumbai, in consultation with experts and advocates, has dissected the said bill and its impact on the citizens.

Problematic Provisions of MSPS 2024

The draft MSPS Bill of 2024 has extremely vague, broad and therefore problematic definitions of “an unlawful activity” ((Section (2) (f) (i) to (vii)).  This loose definition is liable to malicious misuse. For instance, the interpretation of the ((Section (2) (f) (i)) phrase …” which constitutes a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquillity” has been left open for interpretation, with potential for misuse. The usage of the word “menace” in the definition in itself problematic as the term “menace” is not defined anywhere in the law. It is crucial to highlight that the dictionary meaning of the word means, dangerous act of person, and leaves it open to the authorities to bring anything under the Act according to their discretion and penalise the ones being targeted. (They can say cooking on streets is a menace to public and arrest people).

This vagueness of definitions to make and include undefined “acts” as criminal acts is extremely problematic. In any law, any criminal act should be well defined and should not be left to be interpreted loosely by the police. Unfortunately, or rather consciously, this practice has been done away with in order to get away with accountability.

In addition to this, the definition of criminal act under Section 2(f) describes unlawful activity as:

As can be seen in the above provided definition, no concrete ambit is provided, and only vague words are used to define the nature of the acts that can be deemed as unlawful activities by the authorities. The law tends to give arbitrary powers to the police and it is an open secret that the political party in power is many times misusing police authority.

In lines with certain special legislations as well as state legislations, Section 5(1) (2) of the MSPS Bill provides for the setting up of the “Advisory Board” set up under the Act to adjudicate on the Actions of the State Government, police and Administration. Curiously, as per the said provision, the Advisory Board is required to be consisting of “three persons are, have been, or are qualified to be appointed as Judge of the High Court”, which means that existing retired or “non appointed officials or lawyers” also qualify to be a part of the Advisory Board. Since the Advisory Board is to be formed by the state government itself, one need not use their imagination to think of the ways in which the said provision can be used (or misused).

Section 9, through sub-section 1, provides draconian and arbitrary powers to the administration and the Police (DM or Police Commissioner) to take possession of or seize any notified area an evict persons from that premise (if women and children live there “reasonable time” is the only protection given to them!). Moreover, Section 10 (1) extends this arbitrary power to seize moveable properties, monies etc within this seized property making this one more power given to arbitrary use.

As per Section 12 of the draft MSPS Bill also denied those arrested any recourse of law at district level, and declares the High Court and Supreme Court as proper forums to file any petition to challenge action against this law. This militates against the four-tier system of Justice Redressal as laid down in the Indian Constitution. The reasoning behind the same remains to be clarified.

Under Sections 14 and 15 of the MSPS Bill, protection has been granted to every Police Officer and District Magistrate (bureaucrat) to be penalised or held accountable for any strictures are passed by the High Court or Supreme Court on misuse of prosecution, as the said two sections state that no actions can be initiated against them.

Dangers of New Bill (MSPS Act) in the face of existing BNS, 2023, UAPA, 1967 & PMLA, 2002

Various sections in the BNS, 2023 including Section 152, which reintroduces ‘Sedition’ under IPC 124-A and has been described by experts as ‘Sedition Plus’, Section 113, which criminalises terrorist acts, and Section 111, which brings in organised crimes, give arbitrary powers to the authorities to take action against those individuals who commit actions deemed to be against national integrity and national security.

CJP would specifically like to highlight Section 152 of the BNS, which states that  “acts that are endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, purposefully or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by science, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial means or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite cessation or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feeling of separatist activities, or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India’ or indulges in or commits any such acts shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine.” While being vague and broad by itself, the MSPS Bill also bears an uncanny resemblance to the said provision.

Additionally, Section 113 (1) of the BNS, 2023, which covers under its ambit anyone who does any act with the intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security, or economic security of India or with the intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country, mirrors Section 15 of the UAPA. The only difference is that it deals with acts committed in a foreign country as well.

Similarly, Section 113 (2) that deals with committing of such a terrorist act that results in death or otherwise, mirrors Section 16 of the UAPA verbatim. Section 113 (3), which covers those who conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or incites, directly or knowingly facilitates the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, mirrors Section 18 of the UAPA verbatim. Section 113 (4), which deals with those who organise or cause to be organised any camp or camps for imparting training in terrorist act mirrors Section 18A of the UAPA verbatim. Section 113 (5) states that any person who is a member of an organisation which is involved in terrorist act mirrors Section 20 of the UAPA verbatim.

Section 113 (6), which covers the offense of voluntarily harbours or concealing those such person that commits a terrorist, has been taken from Section 19 of the UAPA verbatim.

Section 113 (7), which criminalises the offense of knowingly possessing any property derived or obtained from commission of any terrorist act, has been taken from Section 21 of the UAPA, present in BNS with a wider ambit.

The whole section has been picked from UAPA almost verbatim, without the relevant safeguards being present in BNSS (sanction). The question that arises is on what was the need to inculcate these draconian and stringent laws into the criminal laws of India and now, in Maharashtra to table one more such.

In the overall background that the nation is in today with a government that has jailed critics through a rampant misuse of the PMLA Act 2002 and the UAPA, 1967 –and the political revengeful manner in which investigation arm like ED is acting, the newly table MSPS Bill, is addition of another draconian face to the laws in the state and in the country.

Persecution by Multiplicity of Statute Charges

Another dangerous implication that will accompany this attempt to enact one more draconian state law is its impact on the provision for undertrials seeking statutory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Section 479 of the BNSS contains very stringent bail provisions for statutory bail. The said section limits the conditions for granting statutory bail to under trials—is a section in the new law which corresponds to section 436 A of the Carps, provides for the procedure to be adopted in case the under trial is to be given statutory bail after spending a particular period under detention. In the older CrPC, if an under trial has spent half of the maximum period of imprisonment for an offence in detention, they must be released on a personal bond (not to be applied to offences which are punishable by death) BNSS, 2023 retains the said provision, and makes it further stringent.

However now, under Section 479, the provision of granting bail to under trial prisoners will now be limited to those under trials who are first-time offenders if they have completed one-third of the maximum sentence. Since charge sheets often mention multiple offences, this may make many under trials ineligible for mandatory bail. Furthermore, through the said provision, the prohibition of getting bail under the said section had also been expanded to those offences that are punishable with life imprisonment. Therefore, the following under trials are barred from applying for statutory bail under the said section if: offences punishable by life imprisonment, and persons who have pending proceedings in more than one offence.

Nothing but a move to muzzle protests?

Former Chief Minister and Congress MLA Prithviraj Chavan spoke to the media, calling the bill to be “nothing but a move to muzzle protests”. Media reports have quoted Chavan as saying. “The government wanted to present and pass this bill today itself. We opposed it and requested the Speaker not to push it through. We will oppose the bill vehemently.”

Furthermore, the Maharashtra State Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has even called for the withdrawal of the bill, stating that it will have a deep impact on the democratic processes of governance. Therefore, the state of Maharashtra, like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, should set about the task of amending the more draconian provisions of the BNS, 2023 and repeal earlier passed laws that have been abused and misused, rather than introducing more authoritarian legislations.

The complete bill can be accessed here:

Related:

Supreme Court: “Authorities cannot randomly accuse people of being foreigners, initiate investigation without material basis”

New Criminal Laws: Future risks for democracy and rights in India

Amend Sec 187(3) BNSS in line with Sec 167(2) CrPC: PUCL to HM and Law Minister

Modi’s government bypasses SC & Law Commission, no nuanced, strong penal sections on Hate Speech: BNS, 2023

The post Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill tabled in assembly, using the myth of “urban naxals” to supress dissent? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court had earlier directed authorities to take immediate action against such hate speeches and events, even if no formal complaint was made. However, despite clear announcements about the “Dharam Sansad” and its harmful content being shared publicly, the authorities have failed to act. This petition calls for the Court to intervene and ensure that the law is enforced, so as to prevent any further spread of hate and violence.

Not only through legal means, many religious organisations have also condemned the scheduled event. The Satya Dharam Samvad (SDS), a collective of 62 prominent Hindu Acharyas, has also spoken against the divisive nature of the proposed “Dharam Sansad,” calling for its rejection and emphasising the need for unity, tolerance, and interfaith dialogue. In a statement, they expressed concern over the misuse of religion to incite hatred and violence, reaffirming that Hinduism, with its core principles of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) and Sarva Dharma Sambhava (equal respect for all religions), stands for peace, acceptance, and harmony.

Satya Dharam Samvad condemns the “Dharam Sansad” and calls for unity

The Satya Dharam Samvad (SDS), an organisation of Hindu Acharyas, has called upon Hindu religious leaders and organisations to reject the divisive “Dharam Sansad” proposed by the Yati Narsinghanand Foundation, scheduled to take place from Tuesday to Saturday at the Shiv-Shakti temple complex in Ghaziabad’s Dasna. In a joint statement signed by 62 Acharyas, including prominent figures like Swami Raghavendra, Acharya Bajrang, Mahant, Prof. Anantanand Rambachan, Ashok Maharaj Kamble, and Ashok Sangpa, the SDS emphasised the importance of promoting unity, tolerance, and dialogue over hatred and division.

The statement expressed deep concern over the increasing misuse of religion to spread violence and discord, urging a return to the foundational values of Hinduism – Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) and Sarva Dharma Sambhava (equal respect for all religions). It affirmed that Hinduism has always stood for peace, acceptance, and harmony, rejecting caste-based divisions and any form of oppression. True spirituality, the signatories asserted, lies in recognising the divine presence in all beings and fostering mutual respect.

The SDS also criticised the “World Religion Convention” and the provocative speeches targeting specific faiths that are being promoted as part of the upcoming event. These actions, they argued, are a departure from the true essence of Sanatan Dharma, undermining its spiritual sanctity while threatening the harmony of the nation. The statement firmly condemned words or actions that promote hatred, disrespect other religions, or incite violence, calling such behaviour completely at odds with Hindu principles.

Calling for interfaith understanding and peaceful coexistence, the SDS urged religious leaders to oppose the exploitation of religion for political or divisive purposes. They also called on the authorities to take accountability and ensure that religion is not misused to fuel division. The signatories appealed for unity, urging Hindus and people of all faiths to come together with kindness and mutual respect, recognising that India’s true strength lies in its diversity and shared harmony.

The press release may be read here.

Details of the petition

Background: The petition had been filed before the Supreme Court of India under Article 129 of the Constitution, read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petition arises from the deliberate and wilful disobedience of two specific orders passed by the Supreme Court: the order dated October 21, 2022 in Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 940/2022) and the order dated April 28, 2023 in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 943/2021). These orders had directed state authorities to take suo- motu action against hate speech or activities that attract offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 505 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC), even in the absence of formal complaints. The orders further clarified that any hesitation or delay in complying with these directions would amount to contempt of court.

The petition states that despite these explicit directives, the petition highlights that the authorities in Uttar Pradesh, including the Commissioner of Police, District Magistrate, and Director General of Police, have failed to act against an upcoming event titled “Dharam Sansad,” scheduled to take place from December 17 to 21 at Shiv Shakti Dham, Dasna, Ghaziabad. The event, organised by the Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati Foundation, has been widely publicised through a website titled worldreligiousconvention.org. The website and the event itself are rooted in incendiary, communal content that openly propagates hate against the Muslim community, posing a direct threat to constitutional values of secularism and fraternity. The contempt petition seeks immediate judicial intervention to prevent this event and hold the respondents accountable for their failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s earlier orders.

The content of the event and its communal nature: The petition brings to the Court’s attention the blatantly inflammatory and communal nature of the content being disseminated through the website promoting the “Dharam Sansad” event. The petition provides that the mission statement of the event openly declares:

“The World Religious Parliament is a meaningful initiative to warn the whole world about the danger of Islam and it is an effort to bring together every Non-Muslim of all over the countries.”

Further, the petition also provides the vision statement that outlines an explicit and dangerous agenda:

“Our goal is to free the entire world from Islamic Jihad. This is our specific goal and to achieve this goal, we will take all possible steps.”

In addition to the website’s content, the petition underscores that provocative and hateful language has been used in public speeches made by the event organisers, event as the announcement of the Dharam Sansad was being made. As per the petition, Yati Ramswaroopanand, one of the key figures associated with the event, delivered a speech in Dehradun on September 10, 2024, describing Muslims as “not human” and calling for Uttarakhand to be made “Islam mukt.” He further urged Hindus to “keep good weapons and learn how to use them.” The petition provides supporting material, including transcripts, screenshots, and reports, to substantiate these claims.

The petition emphasises that the dissemination of such incendiary content and the planned congregation of individuals with a documented history of hate speech is not only a violation of Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 505 of the IPC but also strikes at the core of India’s constitutional values of secularism, harmony, and fraternity.

Track record of violence and state inaction: The contempt petition goes beyond the immediate concern of the “Dharam Sansad” and highlights the troubling track record of the individuals involved in organising and promoting the event. Individuals like Yati Narsinghanand and Yati Ramswaroopanand have repeatedly made provocative speeches inciting communal violence. For instance:

• In October 2024, Darshan Bharati, another organiser of the “Dharam Sansad,” instigated a violent rally in Uttarkashi, where stones were thrown at the police, injuring 27 people, including police personnel.
• In September 2024, a speech delivered by Yati Narsinghanand in western Uttar Pradesh, against Prophet Mohammad, led to mass protests and violence in the region.
• In 2023, in Purola, Uttarkashi, a false “love jihad” narrative was used to incite violence, leading to attacks on Muslim-owned shops and the forced displacement of Muslim families. Subsequent court findings revealed that the case was fabricated, yet no action was taken against the instigators.

The petition highlights that despite a well-documented history of hate speech and communal violence directly linked to these individuals, the state authorities have failed to take preventive action or register FIRs, as mandated by the Supreme Court. This consistent inaction emboldens the organisers and poses an imminent threat to communal harmony in the region.

The petition argues that the respondents’ failure to act constitutes not just a dereliction of duty but a wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s orders. By ignoring repeated provocations and open announcements of such events, the state authorities are in clear contempt of court.

Legal basis and prayer for relief: The petition places heavy reliance on two recent judgments of the Supreme Court to strengthen its legal argument. In Chaduranga Kanthraj URS v. P. Ravi Kumar (2024), the Court clarified that wilful disobedience—deliberate and intentional disregard of court orders—constitutes civil contempt. Similarly, in Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna (2024), the Court expanded the scope of contempt, holding that any act intended to undermine the judicial process also falls within its ambit. The petition argues that the respondents’ failure to prevent the “Dharam Sansad” event, despite its provocative and unconstitutional nature, directly undermines the Court’s authority and frustrates its earlier orders.

The petition concludes with the following prayers:

1. To initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for their deliberate non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s orders dated October 12, 2022 and April 28, 2023.
2. To issue immediate directions to the respondents to take legal action against the organisers, speakers, and promoters of the “Dharam Sansad” event. This includes issuing prohibitory orders to prevent the event from taking place and registering FIRs against those involved.
3. To pass any other relief that the Court may deem necessary to uphold its authority, safeguard public order, and protect constitutional values.

The petition emphasises that the Court’s intervention is not only necessary to address the specific case of non-compliance but also to reaffirm the rule of law and the constitutional mandate of secularism and fraternity. By allowing such events to proceed unchecked, the respondents are enabling the erosion of these values and endangering communal harmony across the nation. The petition, therefore, calls upon the Court to take strong and decisive action to ensure compliance with its earlier orders and prevent further escalation of hate speech and violence.

A detailed report on the widespread opposition that the Dharam Sansad is facing can be read here.

Related:

Fierce backlash grows against Yati Narsinghanand’s Dharam Sansad as fears of incitement to violence escalate; plea moved in SC

Uttarakhand: Retd. Muslim Army Officer Faces Ire of ‘Hindutva’ Forces; FIR Filed After 2-Yr Legal Battle

Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones

UP government’s ‘naming and shaming’ tactic: A repeat of constitutional defiance

The post Dharm Sansad: Hindu Religious leaders condemn ‘divisive’ event even as a contempt petition is filed in SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Court emphasized that the ultimate goal of education is to nurture responsible citizens who understand and uphold the core principles of the Indian Constitution. It urged the state to focus on this, especially as India celebrates 75 years of its Constitution. The Court granted the state a month to take action and submit an affidavit on the matter within six weeks.

Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih expressed concern over the UP-government’s failure to follow earlier directions, particularly those regarding the inclusion of constitutional values in education. They reaffirmed that without teaching values of equality, secularism, and fraternity, true quality education cannot be achieved, as per a Live Law report.

Background of the Case

In the month of August 2023, a minor Muslim student was scolded and hurled communal remarks by his school teacher Tripta Tyagi, for allegedly not doing his homework. The teacher also asked other students to slap the minor boy. She could be heard saying, “Go to any Muslim child’s area…” suggesting a pejorative statement. Furthermore, she instructed the fellow students to “hit harder”. The video of the incident went viral on social media and created nationwide outrage.

Following the incident, Tushar Gandhi filed a petition in the Supreme Court to ensure independent investigation in the matter. Subsequently, the teacher was booked under Sections 302 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of the Indian Penal Code, which are non-cognisable offences. Only after a long delay and rap from SC, the FIR was finally filed by the police incorporating the additional charges under Section 295A of IPC, which deals with acts that deliberately and maliciously outrage religious feelings of any class, and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which relates to punishment for cruelty to child.

The SC began hearing the petition in month of September 2023, and since then has issued several directions to the State Government with regards to the filing of FIR, invocation of relevant charges based on the evidence, admission of the victim student in the private school of their choice of school under the EWS quota, counselling of the victim and other students, and seeking compliance reports at various stages. The court has rebuked the State more than once for its repeated non-compliance of the court’s orders.

Prohibition on subjecting a child to physical punishment or mental harassment

On September 25, 2023, while hearing the petition, the division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mittal considering the manner in which police had delayed action, the bench directed the investigation shall be conducted under the supervision of a senior IPS Officer, and the court also directed for submitting the compliance report to this Court on this aspect and for reporting the progress made in the investigation.

Moreover, in relation to ensure the good quality in elementary education, the bench directed that this is the obligation of the local authorities under Section 9(h) of the RTE Act.

The bench noted that “under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the RTE Act, there is a complete prohibition on subjecting a child to physical punishment or mental harassment. If the allegations made by the parents of the victim are correct, this may be the worst kind of physical punishment imparted by a teacher inasmuch as the teacher directed other students to give physical punishment to the victim.”

“When the object of the RTE Act is to provide quality education, unless there is an effort made to inculcate the importance of constitutional values in the students, especially the core values of equality, secularism and fraternity, there cannot be any quality education. There cannot be quality education if, in a school, a student is sought to be penalised only on the ground that he belongs to a particular community. Thus, there is a prima facie failure on the part of the State to comply with the mandatory obligations under the RTE Act and the Rules framed thereunder” the strongly stressed.

No child is subjected to caste, class, religious or gender abuse or discrimination in the school

During the hearing on September 25, 2023, the bench observed that under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the said Rules framed by the State Government, there is a mandate that the local authority shall be responsible for ensuring that no child is subjected to caste, class, religious or gender abuse or discrimination in the school.

The bench directed that “the State Government is under an obligation to enforce and implement the provisions of the RTE Act and the said Rules.”

The bench noted that the victim must have undergone trauma, and directed that “we direct the State Government to ensure that proper counselling is extended to the victim of the offence through an expert child counsellor. Even the other students, who were involved in the incident, in the sense that they allegedly followed the mandate issued by the teacher and assaulted the victim, need counselling by an expert child counsellor. The State Government will take immediate steps to do the needful by providing services of an expert child counsellor.”

State must make proper arrangements for providing quality education

The Court, in light of the gravity and sensitivity of the incident at hand, has directed that the State must address a critical issue. Specifically, the Court has emphasized that “the State will have to answer one more important question. The question is what educational facilities the State will extend to the victim of the offence for discharging its obligations under the RTE Act and Article 21A of the Constitution, which means that the State must make proper arrangements for providing quality education to the victim in terms of the provisions of the RTE Act. The State cannot expect the child to continue in the same school.”

Further directed that;

“The senior police officer appointed in terms of this order shall submit a compliance report as well as a report on steps taken in the investigation. He shall provide to this Court the copies of the transcripts of the conversation in the video clip of the alleged incident.”

“The State shall submit the compliance report on providing better education facilities to the victim of the offence and complying with the direction to undertake counselling of the victim and other students through an expert child psychologist. After looking at the report, we will consider whether further directions are required to be issued to ensure that there is no violation of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the RTE Act.”

“The RTE Act is aimed at providing compulsory elementary education to strengthen the social fabric of our democracy. The emphasis is on giving equal opportunities to all to get access to the facilities of education. Moreover, there are detailed guidelines for eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools laid down by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights established under the provisions of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. We direct the State Government to place on record the said guidelines.”

The Supreme Court order dated 25.09.2023 can be read here

Related:

SC directs UP government to immediately sanction prosecution of teacher accused of instructing students to beat Muslim child

Supreme Court: Directs UP government to comply with directions and implement wholistic reparations

Lack of compliance with orders of the Supreme Court by UP government in Muzaffarnagar slapping case- a worrisome and “shocking” spectacle

The post No quality education without teaching equality, secularism, fraternity value: SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was on December 8 after delivering a speech at an event organised by the legal cell of Hindu right-wing organisation Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) that these remarks were reportedly made.

The Opposition clock, led by independent member of parliament, senior counsel Kapil Sibal has already submitted an impeachment notice against him. The motion, signed by 55 MPs, is expected to be addressed during the ongoing Winter Session of Parliament.

On December 10, Monday, Sabrangindia had done a detailed story on the sharp reactions to the Judge’s remarks, including letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjeev Khanna by Brinda Karat, polit bureau member of the CPI-M and letters by several advocate organisations and unions. Controversially, on December 15, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh (UP, the state where the remarks were made, Adityanath stated that he “agreed” with the remarks of the Judge!

During his lecture at the VHP function, on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), Justice Yadav made controversial remarks asserting that India will operate according to the wishes of the majority population.  He also made a series of other controversial remarks during his speech, including the use of the term “kathmullah,” a derogatory slur against Muslims. It was two days later, sources informed Bar & Bench that the top court had taken note of the controversy, with its administrative side calling for details from Allahabad High Court.

The comments made by the sitting judge has led to demands that he be impeached and judicial work be withdrawn from him in the meantime.

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) had thereafter also filed a formal complaint with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) demanding an in-house enquiry against Justice Yadav. Incidentally, on December 12, Allahabad High Court announced a major change in the roster of Justice Yadav. Effective December 16, he will only be hearing first appeals – cases arising out of orders passed by district courts, and that too only those filed up to 2010.

Related:

Impeach the Judge, INDIA bloc set to move impeachment motion against HC judge who made communal hate-speeches

Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones

The post SC Collegium summons Allahabad HC Judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav over remarks on Muslims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Shivkumar Dige while hearing a plea filed by Faiyaz Shaikh, the Pune President of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) party, directed Pune police to chart out a route for a rally, commemorating Tipu Sultan’s birth anniversary, for which it had earlier denied permission.

Shaikh sought permission to organize a rally to commemorate the birth anniversary of Bharat Ratna Maulana Azad and Tipu Sultan, in addition to celebrating Constitution Day on November 26. However, the Pune Rural Police had refused to grant permission for the rally, particularly the one intended to mark the birth anniversary of Tipu Sultan.

Shaikh then moved the Bombay High Court seeking permission to conduct the rally on December 24. The police raised concerns about potential law and order issues, citing letters they had received from members of another community who threatened to disrupt the rally. The police suggested that Shaikh should instead celebrate Tipu Sultan’s anniversary at a private location, far from the public eye.

According to Live Law, during the hearing, Justice Mohite-Dere raised an important question:

“Is there a ban on celebrating the birth anniversary of Tipu Sultan?”

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Kranti Hivrale, responded that there was no such ban. However, she reiterated the police’s concerns about maintaining public order in light of the potential disruptions that might arise from the rally. The prosecutor emphasized that granting permission for the rally could incite violence or create tensions between communities.

Justice Mohite-Dere, however, challenged this reasoning. She pointed out that the police were responsible for maintaining law and order and that their authority in this matter should not be undermined by external pressures. She acknowledged that rallies could sometimes lead to disturbances, but emphasized that such risks should not be an automatic ground for denying permission.

“We understand if the rally cannot be permitted in a particular area due to law-and-order concerns. But yes, you can always ask them to change the route. If they commit any offense, you are free to lodge an FIR,” Justice Mohite-Dere explained, underscoring that the police had the tools to manage any potential disruptions.

Further, Justice Mohite-Dere directed the Superintendent of Police (SP) for Pune Rural, Pankaj Deshmukh, to appear virtually before the court. Deshmukh informed the judges that the police objection was specifically related to the celebration of Tipu Sultan’s birth anniversary. The police had no issue with the celebration of Constitution Day or Maulana Azad’s birth anniversary, but their primary concern was the potential for unrest that could arise from the Tipu Sultan event.

The judges, however, were not convinced by this singular objection. They pointed out that Shaikh’s request was not solely for the celebration of Tipu Sultan’s anniversary, but for a rally that included the birth anniversaries of both Maulana Azad and Tipu Sultan, along with the celebration of Constitution Day.

“You decide the route for them, but you cannot ask them to celebrate it at their own place. There is no reason why they cannot be allowed to take out the procession,” Justice Mohite-Dere said, firmly asserting that law and order could not be used as a blanket reason to deny the rally, as Live Law reported.

The court then made it clear that while the police had the right to impose certain conditions to ensure that the rally would proceed smoothly, they could not use potential disturbances as a pretext to block the event altogether. Justice Mohite-Dere clarified that if the organizers used derogatory language or committed any offenses during the rally, the police were free to take action and file a case. She reiterated that the rally could go ahead as long as it complied with the law and the conditions set by the police to prevent any untoward incidents.

In the course of the hearing, the judges instructed Faiyaz Shaikh to meet with Superintendent Pankaj Deshmukh and work out the details of the route for the rally. The court further directed Shaikh to submit an undertaking, assuring the authorities that the rally would proceed without any untoward incidents and in compliance with the conditions set by the police.

The matter was then adjourned until December 17, with the expectation that both parties would reach an agreement on the route and other logistical details for the rally. This case highlights the role of the judiciary in ensuring that the fundamental rights of citizens, including the right to freedom of expression and assembly, are upheld, while also acknowledging the necessity of public order.

This legal episode also underscores the complexities involved in organizing public events in a multi-communal society, where tensions between different groups can often make the process of seeking permission for rallies more challenging. In such situations, it becomes imperative for authorities to ensure that no group’s right to celebrate or commemorate historical figures is unduly curtailed, and that law-and-order concerns are dealt with fairly and in accordance with the law.

As the case continues, it is likely to set important precedents for how similar cases are handled in the future, especially when it comes to the celebration of contentious historical figures or events.

Related:

A hero defamed

Why did Tipu Sultan have a Hindu god’s name on his ring

Stop drama or die: Threats to Tipu Sultan play in Mysuru

The post Tipu Sultan birth anniversary rally gets green light from Bombay High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This stay effectively halts any judicial action that could disturb public harmony or prejudice the resolution of the issues at hand. By freezing all proceedings, the court has ensured that the sensitive subject of religious places is dealt with calmly and with the utmost judicial oversight.

The order also addressed the delays in filing responses by the Union of India, noting that despite the issuance of notice as early as September 9, 2022, no counter affidavit or reply had been submitted. The court directed the Union to file its reply “within four weeks from today,” emphasising the need for timely compliance. The court also directed for the copies of the reply are to be served to all petitioners and respondents, who may file their rejoinders within four weeks of receiving it.

To facilitate the coordination of documents and arguments in this multi-party case, the court appointed Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain as Nodal Counsel for those challenging the validity of the Act and Mr. Ejaz Maqbool for those supporting its enforcement or opposing the challenges. Additionally, Mr. Kanu Agarwal was designated as the Nodal Counsel for the Union of India, responsible for creating and maintaining a Google Drive link to upload the Union’s affidavit, which will be shared with all relevant parties. The court also established a shared email ID to streamline the exchange of pleadings, directing, “All the Nodal Counsel will have access to the said email ID to facilitate coordination.”

The court’s order reiterated its earlier framing of legal questions on October 12, 2022 regarding the scope and application of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 Act, which prohibit the alteration of religious character and nullify ongoing legal challenges to the status of places of worship as they stood on 15 August 1947. It noted that additional issues have arisen during the hearings and that the primary questions relate to “the contours, as well as the width and expanse of the said provisions.” The case is now scheduled to be heard next on February 17, 2025.

This order marks a decisive moment in the legal proceedings, as the Supreme Court’s stay prevents any disruptive developments while maintaining a controlled and coordinated process for addressing the constitutional challenge to the 1991 Act. It underscores the court’s commitment to safeguarding communal harmony and judicial decorum in one of the most sensitive and significant cases of our time.

(Detailed report on the judicial proceedings of December 12, 2024 can be read here.)

The complete order may be read below:

Intervention applications reflect broad stakeholder interest

Notably, recently, more intervention applications in the matter have also been filed by various prominent parties and individuals, reflecting the broad interest and stakes involved in the litigation. These include the Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee, Maharashtra MLA Dr. Jitendra Satish Awhad from the Nationalist Congress Party (Socialist), the Communist Party of India (Marxist), represented by Mr. Prakash Karat, Member of the Politburo, the Mathura Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee, and Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha. These interventions highlight the diverse perspectives and communal sensitivities surrounding the constitutional challenge to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, underscoring its far-reaching social and political implications. These interventions highlight the diverse perspectives and communal sensitivities surrounding the constitutional challenge to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, underscoring its far-reaching social and political implications.

1. Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee’s intervention

The Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee had filed an intervention before the Supreme Court, asserting its critical stake in the legal deliberations concerning the 1991 Act. The committee argued that multiple suits have been filed seeking the mosque’s removal, despite the clear bar imposed by Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, which preserve the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947.

Highlighting the far-reaching implications of declaring the Act unconstitutional, the committee stated that such a decision would have “drastic” consequences. It expressed concern that the Act’s misinterpretation had already led to legal challenges against several mosques and dargahs across the country, including the Gyanvapi Mosque. As per the report of LiveLaw, the committee emphasised: “The applicant is constrained to intervene in the present proceedings as a misreading/misinterpretation of the 1991 Act, and the salutary reasons for which it had been enacted, is being sought to be diluted by filing of suits against Mosques and, even before issues are struck, seeking interim directions for survey of the Mosques or an ASI inspection.”

The application referenced recent instances where ex-parte interim orders were issued by district courts, including orders allowing a survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque and the Sambhal Jama Masjid, as examples of how the 1991 Act is being undermined. (The detailed report on Sambhal violence may be read here, here and here.)

Additionally, the committee invoked the doctrine of non-retrogression, which the Supreme Court had discussed in the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple Case. It argued that under this principle, the State has a “non-derogable obligation” to uphold the country’s commitment to secularism as enshrined in the Constitution. The committee emphasised that any weakening of the 1991 Act would represent a step backward in protecting the secular fabric of the nation.

2. Indian Union Muslim League’s intervention

The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), represented by its General Secretary and Kerala MLA PK Kunhalikutty along with Lok Sabha MP ET Muhammed Basheer, had filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court in the ongoing challenges to the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The IUML’s intervention underscores the importance of the Act in safeguarding secularism and religious freedoms for all faiths in India. The application emphasises that secularism has been recognised as a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution, thus rendering the Act immune from any amendments by Parliament.

The IUML’s application, as per LiveLaw, highlights the Act’s dual purposes, both of which are crucial for preserving public order and harmony. Firstly, the Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship, ensuring that the religious character of such places is not altered. Secondly, the Act imposes a positive obligation on the State to maintain the religious character of every place of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947, the date when India became an independent, democratic, and secular nation. The application underscores that this date is pivotal, marking the emergence of India as a modern State with no official religion and providing equal rights to all religious denominations. As the application states: “This August 15, 1947 is crucial because on that date this nation was emerged as a modern, democratic and sovereign State thrusting back such barbarity into the past once and for all.”

Further, the IUML stresses that the 1991 Act is instrumental in fostering unity, peace, and mutual respect among India’s diverse religious communities. The application also draws attention to recent incidents in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, as a stark reminder of the need for such legislation. The IUML contends that if the Act had been properly enforced, incidents like the one in Sambhal, which resulted in the tragic loss of six lives, could have been prevented. The increasing number of suits concerning places of worship, the IUML argues, is exactly the type of issue the 1991 Act was designed to address. As they assert, “The mushrooming of suits concerning places of worship is precisely the mischief sought to be curtailed by the introduction of this impugned Act.”

Through its intervention, the IUML advocates for the continued preservation of the Act, highlighting its critical role in maintaining communal harmony and upholding the secular values enshrined in India’s Constitution.

3. Jitendra Satish Awhad’s Intervention

Dr. Jitendra Satish Awhad, a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Mumbra-Kalwa and a representative of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), had filed an intervention in the Supreme Court proceedings challenging the 1991 Act. Awhad’s application underscored the Act’s crucial role in preserving secularism, promoting communal harmony, and preventing the tensions that could disrupt national unity.

Drawing from the historical context of his constituency, Awhad highlighted that Mumbra-Kalwa became a refuge for those displaced by the 1992-93 Bombay riots, which had caused significant social and physical divides between communities. Over time, efforts have been made to rebuild trust and unity among the diverse communities in the region. Awhad warned that any dilution of the 1991 Act could jeopardise these efforts, potentially unravelling the progress made in fostering peace.

Awhad’s intervention further stresses the historical importance of the Act, especially in the immediate aftermath of India’s independence when the country faced significant religious and communal strife. He noted that the Act reflects Parliament’s considered response to these concerns, aiming to stabilise the nation and promote cohesion by preventing disputes over religious sites that could destabilise public order and communal harmony. As per LiveLaw, his application states that “There exists a clear and reasonable nexus between the Act’s prohibition on altering the religious character of places of worship and its overarching objective of fostering national unity and integrity.”

Awhad’s application has been filed through AoR Anas Tanwir and is drawn by Advocates Neha Singh and Ebad Ur Rahman. Additionally, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has also intervened in the case, supporting the constitutionality of the Act and its role in safeguarding India’s secular fabric.

4. Communist Party of India (Marxist) intervention

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)), represented by Mr. Prakash Karat, Member of the Politburo, had filed an Intervention Application before the Supreme Court. The CPI(M) strongly advocates for the Act’s critical role in preserving India’s secular fabric by preventing any alteration to the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. This prohibition is central to ensuring the communal harmony and national cohesion that the Act was designed to uphold.

In its application, the CPI(M) underscores the Act’s importance in preventing conflicts rooted in historical disputes, arguing that its legislative intent is crucial in maintaining peace and preventing further strife. The party also emphasises that the Act safeguards the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 21 (right to life and liberty), and 25 (freedom of religion) of the Indian Constitution, ensuring equality, non-discrimination, and the freedom of all citizens to practice their religion without fear of interference or alteration.

The CPI(M) further warns that any attempt to repeal or alter the Act would undermine these constitutional principles, posing a threat to secularism and the rule of law, both of which are foundational to India’s democratic framework. The application highlights the growing number of litigations challenging the religious character of various places of worship, including mosques and dargahs. Referring specifically to recent cases involving the Sambhal Mosque and the Ajmer Dargah, the CPI(M) asserts that such cases “intend to destabilise the legislative intent and constitutional mandate enshrined in the Act,” warning that this “relentless wave of litigation” threatens to erode India’s secular values.

5. Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha’s intervention

Manoj Kumar Jha, a Member of Rajya Sabha representing the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), had also moved an intervention application before the Supreme Court. In his submission, Jha argues that the 1991 Act is fully aligned with the Indian Constitution and promotes its core values, especially the commitment to secularism and equality for all religions.

The application, filed through Advocate-on-Record Fauzia Shakil, asserts that the Act does not contravene any fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Instead, it strengthens the constitutional tenets by protecting the religious character of places of worship as they existed on 15 August 1947. Jha emphasises that the Act serves as a legislative guarantee, ensuring that these places of worship are preserved by the State, in line with the nation’s secular commitments.

As Jha’s application states, the 1991 Act is critical to upholding the Preamble of the Constitution and Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), and 51A (fundamental duties). It underscores the secular obligations of the State and India’s pledge to treat all religions equally, reaffirming the Act’s constitutional validity. According to the report of LiveLaw, the application asserts, “There is no need for the top Court to intervene or ground to declare the Act unconstitutional,” stressing that the legislation is essential for maintaining national unity and preserving the secular fabric of the country.

In his application, Jha also draws attention to the rise of sectarian politics, which has intensified in recent times. He warns that the increasing weaponisation of religion and the polarisation of communities pose significant threats to constitutional values. He adds, “The recent incidents of weaponising religion, polarising communities and fostering a divisive agenda is creating repercussions where dissent and diversity face increasing threats,” thus reinforcing the need for the 1991 Act to prevent such divisiveness and preserve India’s secular ideals.

Related:

When the Supreme Court directed protection for the Gyan Vapi Mosque, upheld the Places of Worship Act, 1991 (1994, 1995, 1997)

UP: After Gyanvapi, Mathura Court Orders Shahi Idgah Survey; ‘Violation’ of Places of Worship Act, Say Activists

When and How Ram Vilas Paswan made a strong pitch for the Places of Worship Act, 1991

“Temple restoration” suits on the rise; what about the Places of Worship Act?

The post Supreme Court issued stay on suits on survey against religious places, interventions had highlighted the Act’s intent to preserve India’s secular character appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Court’s intervention comes amidst a rising tide of petitions and suits challenging the status of religious sites, many of which are medieval mosques and shrines. A recent survey order by a trial court regarding the 16th-century Sambhal Jama Masjid in Uttar Pradesh escalated communal tensions, culminating in violent clashes that claimed four lives in November.

Legal proceedings and court’s directions 

The Supreme Court heard a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, which protects the religious character of places of worship. The lead petition, filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in 2020, questioned the Act’s validity, asserting that it violates the constitutional rights of Hindus to reclaim religious sites they claim were originally temples. The petitioners contend that the Act unjustly prevents a legal examination of historical wrongs. Several other similar petitions, as well as recent intervention applications by political parties such as the CPI(M), DMK, and Indian Union Muslim League, have sought to uphold the Act, emphasising its role in safeguarding India’s secular fabric and preventing religious polarisation.

The bench unequivocally directed that no fresh suits challenging the religious character of places of worship should be registered, nor should trial courts proceed with existing ones. This includes halting orders for surveys or any interim or final decisions until further orders are issued by the Supreme Court. However, the Court did not stay the proceedings of ongoing suits, such as those concerning the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, Shahi Idgah in Mathura, and the Sambhal Jama Masjid, where the Muslim parties have challenged the maintainability of these suits by invoking the 1991 Act.

“As the matter is sub-judice before this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that while suits may be filed, no suits would be registered and proceedings undertaken till further orders of this Court. We also direct that in the pending suits, the Courts would not pass any effective interim orders or final orders, including orders of survey till the next date of hearing,” the bench stated.

The Union Government, which has faced repeated extensions, was ordered to file its counter-affidavit within four weeks. The Court directed that the affidavit be made publicly accessible to ensure transparency. The Court appointed Advocates Kanu Agarwal, Vishnu Shankar Jain, and Ejaz Maqbool as nodal counsel to compile submissions from the government, petitioners, and those defending the Act. Additionally, the Court granted petitioners four weeks to file rejoinders after the Union’s response

Court’s observations on the 1991 Act and pending proceedings

During the hearing, Justice Viswanathan highlighted the critical nature of the issues at stake. He pointed out that the 1991 Act essentially reaffirmed constitutional principles and that civil courts should not proceed with matters that are sub judice before the Supreme Court. Justice Viswanathan stressed that the legal question concerning the constitutionality of the Act is of paramount importance, and trial courts should not engage in passing orders that could pre-empt the Supreme Court’s decision.

Referring to SG Tushar Mehta, Justice Vishwanathan said “Mr SG, plea challenges the constitutionality of the Act…there is a larger question…one of the arguments you have to meet…S.3 one view is it is only an effective reiteration of already embedded constitutional principles…Civil courts can’t run a race with the Supreme Court. That is why there has to be a stay. You have a judgment of 5 judges…”

The Court also refused to grant a stay on the proceedings in the suits already filed, noting that it was not appropriate to stop the legal process entirely. However, it firmly restrained the courts from passing any orders that would further affect the status quo of places of worship involved in these disputes.

Surge in petitions and communal tensions

The rising number of petitions challenging the status of religious sites has been a cause of significant concern. As provided by the respondents in the Court today, there are currently 18 suits pending in the country involving 10 religious structures, including prominent mosques and dargahs such as the Gyanvapi Mosque, Shahi Idgah, and the Ajmer Dargah. These cases, filed largely by Hindu groups, assert that these mosques and shrines were built on the site of demolished temples and demand legal actions to reclaim them.

The legal disputes over these sites have been the catalyst for increased communal tensions, with survey orders and court hearings often sparking protests and violence. The violence in Sambhal following the survey of a mosque there in November 2023 is a stark example of the volatile nature of such legal battles. The Supreme Court’s order today, which halts further suits and survey orders, is aimed at curbing this cycle of escalating communal unrest. (the reports can be read here, here and here.)

Context and broader implications

The 1991 Act was introduced to prevent the conversion of the religious character of places of worship, with an exception only for the Babri Masjid site, which was the subject of the Ayodhya dispute. The Act, which has been subject to increasing challenges, seeks to ensure that no new legal disputes are initiated over the status of religious places, especially those with historical significance, as of August 15, 1947.

The significance of today’s judgment is not just in its immediate impact on ongoing cases but also in the broader political and legal implications. The rising number of petitions seeking surveys, often linked to the assertion of Hindu claims over mosques and dargahs, is a troubling trend for communal harmony. The Supreme Court’s intervention serves as a crucial safeguard, ensuring that the legal process does not fuel further religious conflicts.

By issuing this directive, the Court has reaffirmed its role as the final arbiter in matters that threaten the secular fabric of the nation. This decision has far-reaching consequences, as it not only impacts the 18 current suits but also sends a clear message about the need for judicial restraint and constitutional respect in religious disputes. The outcome of the challenge to the 1991 Act will undoubtedly shape future discourse on the intersection of law, religion, and communal harmony in India.

Related:

Jaunpur’s Atala mosque has moved HC against local court order directing filing of suit claiming it was ‘ancient Hindu temple’

Sambhal Mosque, Ajmer Dargah: how deep do we plunge into the abyss?

Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force

Conspiracy or Coincidence? Mosques defaced in March after spate of hate speeches provoking the crime weeks before

The post “Civil courts can’t run a race with the Supreme Court” says SC Bench while putting a stay on orders for surveys on Places of Worship appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Earlier, the Court had granted interim protection from arrest. During the hearing, Khan’s Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal assured the Court that Khan had been cooperating with the investigation and would continue to do so. Sibal raised concerns over potential harassment by the police under the guise of investigation and objected to the police’s demand for access to Khan’s phone.

Justice Singh, while recognizing the concern, affirmed the police’s right to investigate.

Background

An FIR (No. 280/2024) was filed against activist Nadeem Khan on November 30 at Shaheen Bagh Police Station under sections 196/353(2)/61 of the BNS, 2023. According to the FIR, a sub-inspector (SI) on patrol duty was alerted by “secret sources” about a video circulating on social media. The video was reportedly inciting strong anger among local residents and had the potential to provoke violence. The FIR alleges that a video titled “Records of Hindustan in Modi Sarkar,” posted on the “Akram Official 50” YouTube channel on November 21, depicted an individual at an exhibition booth gesturing towards a banner. The video reportedly mentioned names like Nadeem Khan, Akhlaq, Rohit Vemula, and Pehlu Khan, while also referencing the 2020 Shaheen Bagh protests and the Delhi riots. The FIR claims that the video portrayed a specific community as victims and attempted to incite unrest.

Following this, a non-bailable arrest warrant was issued against Khan. However, on December 3, the Delhi High Court granted him interim protection from arrest until December 6. Justice Jasmeet Singh, during the hearing, directed Khan to cooperate fully with the investigation and to join the ongoing probe. Furthermore, Khan was instructed not to leave the National Capital without the permission of the Investigating Officer.

During the December 3 hearing, when the Delhi Police counsel informed the court that Khan had contacted various individuals, including lawyers, when the officials attempted to arrest him, Justice Singh made an oral remark:

“That can’t be a reason to arrest him. Anybody who’s getting arrested calls people no? Where is the question…how do you go to Bangalore? You say, you go in police uniform in Bangalore to arrest him. How do you do that?

The court said that, “Please understand, we are in a democratic country. The harmony of our nation is not so fragile. It is not so fragile that merely one exhibition, merely someone shouting, it cannot be. Consider people as intelligent…You repose very little faith in the common man. Common man is intelligent. Common man isn’t so fragile that merely one exhibition will”

“We are living in a democratic country. The country places great pride in our fundamental rights. Article 19(1)(a) is to be protected. If you think that a common man will get incited by this, the common man doesn’t have the IQ to understand what is right for them… we are intelligent people. Please have some faith in the common man” the Court further remarked. As Live Law Reported.

Khan framed narrative portraying “particular community” as govt victims: Delhi Police

According to Live Law, the Delhi Police informed the Delhi High Court that civil rights activist Nadeem Khan, through “targeted dissemination of selective and misleading information,” sought to create a narrative portraying a “particular community” as victims of “systematic oppression” by the government.

The police stated, “This selective portrayal is not only factually distorted but appears to be calculated to evoke feelings of victimization and persecution within that community. Such actions suggest a deliberate attempt to provoke discontent and unrest, amounting to a larger conspiracy aimed at undermining communal harmony and public order.”

In its affidavit, the Delhi Police also claimed that Khan was evasive during his December 5 interrogation. It revealed that the “exhibition” organized by “Jamaat-e-Islami Hind,” where the alleged video was recorded at the APCR stall, was entirely managed and controlled by him.

Delhi High Court shielded Khan from arrest and quashed no-bailable warrant

On December 11, in a petition filed by Nadeem Khan under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of order issuing non-bailable warrant and the proceedings emanating therefrom in FIR No. 280/2024, Justice Jasmeet Singh of Delhi High Court quashed the warrant and provided protection from arrest to civil rights activist Nadeem Khan.

Justice Singh also directed that, should the Delhi Police require Khan’s custody, they must provide a seven-day advance written notice. The Delhi Police assured the court that Khan would not be arrested, and if custodial interrogation became necessary, they would notify him in advance.

Delhi Police conducted raid at Delhi office of APCR on November 29

Earlier, on November 29, Delhi Police conducted a raid at the Delhi office of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR). The next day, on November 30, the police attempted to detain Nadeem Khan at his brother’s residence in Bengaluru. The raid and detention attempt were reportedly triggered by social media posts, particularly from a Twitter user named “Mr. Sinha.” The police action followed an exhibition organized by the APCR, which attracted attention from right-wing groups on social media, who have previously targeted Khan due to his vocal criticism of police brutality and state involvement in mob violence.

In response, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) condemned the police actions, describing them as part of a targeted witch-hunt against Khan. PUCL expressed concern over the harassment, which they believe was instigated by certain social media accounts, labelling it an attack on human rights activism.

Human Rights Watch condemned the Delhi Police raid

International Human Rights Body, Human Rights Watch strongly condemned the November 29, 2024, raid by Delhi police on the offices of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR). In a statement, HRW expressed concern that the Indian government is actively seeking to silence voices critical of its policies and those who offer assistance to individuals targeted by politically motivated investigations. HRW’s Pearson stated, “The Indian government appears determined to silence voices that speak out against its abusive practices as well as those who provide assistance to people facing malicious investigations.”

The organization further said that by punishing individuals for exercising their right to free expression, the government is not silencing dissent but rather adding to the growing list of human rights violations in the country. This raid highlights a troubling effort to stifle criticism and further marginalized groups defending the rights of minorities and vulnerable communities in India.

Related:

Nothing ‘Right’ about India’s Human Rights Commission

Teesta Setalvad | A powerful voice for India’s human rights movement

“I am a bad girl because… I want my human rights”

The post Delhi High Court grants protection to activist Nadeem Khan from arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Challenging the suit on technical grounds, the mosque committee argued before the High Court that the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, and therefore, not a “juristic person” under law who can engage in legal action of this nature. A juristic person is a legal entity that is treated as a person.

The mosque authorities have also argued that the property in question has always been a mosque since its construction in 1398 and that it has never been in the possession of followers of any other religion, nor do they have any title over the same.

The original suit was filed by the Swaraj Vahini Association in May before the Jaunpur Civil Court sought that the property be declared as a temple and that followers of the Sanatan religion have the right of worship therein. Sanatana Dharma is a term some people use as a synonym for Hinduism. The association had also sought a direction that would restrain non-Hindus from entering the premises.

The challenge has claimed that Raja Vijay Chandra built the Atala Devi temple in the 13th century, where Hindu rituals such as puja, sewa and kirtan were performed. Besides, in its own version of history the Swaraj Vahini claims that the temple was demolished during the rule of Firuz Shah Tughlaq in the second half of the 14th century, allowing for the construction of the mosque, the association claimed.

On July 25, a court-appointed team had reached the site to conduct a survey but had to return because the gates were closed, Dainik Bhaskar had reported. Ever since the parliamentary wing of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) assumed state power in 2014 in Delhi and then in 2017 in Lucknow, several such disputes of similar nature have come to the fore in recent weeks.

On November 24, violence even broke out in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal after a group of Muslims objected to a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Chandausi town. A trial court had ordered the survey in response to a suit claiming that the mosque had been built in 1526 by Mughal ruler Babar on the site of the “centuries-old Shri Hari Har Temple dedicated to Lord Kalki”. Police behaviour has come in for sharp criticism as five innocent persons were killed in the violence during the survey. Days later, on November 27, a Rajasthan court also admitted a petition claiming that the shrine of 13th-century Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer was built over a Shiva temple.

Atala Masjid or Atala Mosque is a 14th-century mosque in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, India. It is located 399 metres at a distance away from Shahi Qila fort and one km away from the Jama Mosque says Wikipedia. Rebowned for its arches and architecture, William Hodges made a sketch of the mosque when he visited Jaunpur, and included it in his book Selected Views in India, Drawn on the Spot, in the Years 1780, 1781, 1782 and 1783, and Executed in Aqua Tinta. 

Related:

Sambhal Mosque, Ajmer Dargah: how deep do we plunge into the abyss?

Rising Tensions: Muslim Religious Sites face renewed attacks, demand for survey in Delhi’s Jama Masjid and Hanuman Chalisa

Safeguarding our shrines

How the Ajmer Shrine Brings Alive the Spirit of Ramzan & Islam

The post Jaunpur’s Atala mosque has moved HC against local court order directing filing of suit claiming it was ‘ancient Hindu temple’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.