New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking expunging of certain observations made by a trial court, which had said that the issue of “love jihad” conversion cannot be taken lightly and “illegal conversion is a big threat to the unity, integrity and sovereignty of the country”.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti questioned the PIL litigant if the apex court in writ proceedings can expunge observations made by the trial court on the basis of evidence.
Further, it said: “How are you concerned with this matter? Can we really entertain an Article 32 petition like this? Dismiss or withdraw?”
Sensing the disinclination of Justice Roy-led Bench to entertain the plea, the counsel representing the petitioner chose to withdraw the PIL.
Ultimately, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the apex court.
The PIL sought redressal against the “unwarranted and prejudicial” remarks made in September 30 judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge of Fast Track Court-I in Uttar Pradesh’s Bareilly concerning Muslim community.
The PIL litigant prayed for the expunging of the serious and discriminatory observations which undermine the constitutional values of secularism and equality.
The plea said that the impugned remarks made in the judgment of the trial court flagrantly violate the secular ethos and foundational principles of the Constitution of India, as enshrined in the Preamble and fortified by Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25.
“These provisions collectively ensure equality before the law, prohibit discrimination based on religion, safeguard the freedom of religion, and protect the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to dignity,” it added.
The petition said that the Union Home Minister in a Lok Sabha session in 2020 had answered that there is no case of “love jihad” reported by any central agency and the term is also not defined anywhere in the extant statutes.
Further, it sought the issuance of guidelines to the courts across the country to ensure that judicial pronouncements remain free from personal or generalised comments, particularly those that may infringe upon the fundamental rights of any community, group, or individual, or contravene the foundational ethos of the Constitution of India to preserve the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
As per the PIL, the trial court remarks included allegations of “love jihad,” giving a definition to the term “love jihad”, assertions of international funding purportedly linked to this alleged phenomenon and further direction to the Superintendent of Police to incorporate Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Illegal Conversion Act, 2021 in all such cases in future.
(IANS)
