In a curious twist in the matter of the judgment delivered in the Tablighi Jamaat case by the Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court, one of the two judges has expressed a different opinion about one remark made by the other judge. The judgment quashing FIRs against Tablighi Jamaat attendees was delivered by a two judge bench of Justices MG Sewlikar and TV Nalawade. Now, Justice Sewlikar has differed from certain observations made in the main judgement.
While he had expressly mentioned in the August 21 judgment that he agrees with the operative part of the judgement, he had also added that he would pass a differing order.
On August 21, the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay high Court had quashed FIRs against 29 foreign and 6 Indian Tablighi Jamaat attendees and had called out the government’s malice and hate propaganda against the Muslim community. This judgment was written and pronounced by Justice TV Nalawade and while the fellow judge, Justice MG Sewlikar agreed with the operative part of the judgment, he said he would write a judgment as he differed with the reasonings given by his fellow judge.
Justice Mukund G Sewlikar, in his order dated August 27, disagreed with observations made by a senior judge that the action against the gathering was an “indirect warning to Indian Muslims” after the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Maintaining that he agreed with all observations made by Justice Nalawade except the one pertaining to CAA protests, Justice Sewlikar said that since none of the offences could be proved by the prosecution, the chargesheets against the petitioners deserved to be quashed.
He was referring to the reference made by Justice Nalawade in the main judgment to the anti-CAA protests,
“35) There were protests by taking processions holding Dharana at many places in India from at least from prior to January 2020. Most of the persons participated in protest were Muslims. It is their contention that Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 is discriminatory against the Muslims. They believe that Indian Citizenship will not be granted to Muslim refugees and migrants. They were protesting against National Registration of Citizenship (NRC). There were protests on large scale not only in Delhi but in the most of the States in India. It can be said that due to the present action taken fear was created in the minds of those Muslims. This action indirectly gave warning to Indian Muslims that action in any form and for anything can be taken against Muslims. It was indicated that even for keeping contact with Muslims of other countries action will be taken against them. Thus there is smell of malice to the action taken against these foreigners and Muslim for their alleged activities. The circumstances like malice is important consideration when relief is claimed of quashing of F.I.R. and the case itself.”
Justice Sewlikar stated that he does not concur with these observations made by his fellow judge. The order reads, “I find it difficult to concur with these observations as allegations in this respect are not made in the petitions nor there is any evidence in this regard. Therefore, in my opinion these observations are outside the scope of the petitions.”
The complete order may be read here.
Related:
Bom HC slams gov’t for malice in acting against Tablighi members; quashes 3 FIRs
How courts rescued the Tablighi Jamaat from further hatred