Supreme Court freeze on all religious disputes is a welcome step
In a significant step, the Supreme Court on Thursday stayed filing of fresh lawsuits relating to all places of worship and directed courts not to entertain any fresh suit. The apex court also directed courts not to issue any interim or final order, including orders for survey, relating to any place of worship, till the validity of Places of Worship Act, 1991 is examined.
A bench of Chief Justrice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Vishwanathan asked the Centre to file an affidavit on this issue with next four weeks. The matter will now be heard on February 17, 2025.
Lower courts can continue hearing in all pending cases but shall not pass any interim or final order, the apex court said. Though the Muslim petitioners had sought stay on 18 cases including those relating to Mathura Krishna Janmasthan, Dhar Bhojshala, Jaunpur Atala mosque and Ajmer Sharif dargah, the apex court in its omnibus stay, put a freeze on all orders relating to all places of worship.
Jamiatul Ulama-e-Hind chief Maulana Arshad Madani welcomed the SC order and expressed hope that the Centre, in its affidavit, would defend the Places of Worship Act passed by Parliament in 1991. Islamic scholar Maulana Khalid Rashid Firangimahali said, this order of Supreme Court will strengthen Hindu-Muslim brotherhood. AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi hoped that no fresh dispute will now arising relating to places of worship till the apex court finally settles the dispute.
Hindu side lawyers said that such a stay was normal and should not be termed as victory for any side.
Lawyers may interpret the Supreme Court order in their own way, but the moot point is that the original character of all places of religious worship, as of August 15, 1947, shall continue to remain intact. Mosques shall continue to function and temples will also continue to exist.
After a lower court in Varanasi ordered survey of Gyanvapi mosque, there had been a spate of similar suits relating to mosques across India. A survey order for Sambhal mosque came from a lower court within two hours of the petition been filed. This resulted in violence and arson in Sambhal resulting in death of five people.
Another petition was filed relating to Ajmer Khwaja Dargah by advocates Vishnu Shankar Jain and Hari Shankar Jain, who claimed that they have filed at least a dozen petition in similar cases. Muslim petitioners then moved the Supreme Court and they got relief on Thursday.
Supreme Court will now have to finally decide the validity of Places of Worship Act, 1991, and till that time, there shall be a freeze on all such disputes. Let us hope that the Supreme Court will give its verdict so that this trend of searching for Shiv Lingams under every mosque must cease.
Bulldozer and Baba: Action to continue
The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgement on “instant bulldozder justice”, has framed strict pan-India guidelines for demolition of properties. The guidelines say, no demolition of any alleged structure will be carried out without 15-day prior notice to the owner, both by registered post and pasting it on the outer walls of the property. The time period will tick from the date of receipt of notice by the owner. Notice shall delineate nature of unauthorised construction, specify violations, grounds of demolition and fix a date for personal hearing for the owner before a designated authority. The final order for demolition will not be implemented for 15 days to allow the aggrieved person to approach the courts.
Demolition must be videographed and the authorities will have to send a report to the civic authorities. Violations of guidelines will lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to prosecution. Officers concerned will be asked to restore the demolished structure to its original state at their personal cost and they will also be liable to pay damages.
One must understand two major points relating to the judgement. One, the apex court has not imposed a “ban” on use of bulldozers for razing illegal properties. Only guidelines have been issued that must be followed strictly. Two, provision for giving 15-day prior notice was already there in the rule book. There was also provision to hear the accused and they had the right to appeal. What the apex court on Wednesday decided was to ensure that the bulldozers are not used in a hurry, and a transparent procedure must be followed.
The implications now will be that if any heinous crime takes place, bulldozers will not be used to raze the properties of the criminal immediately. Fifteen days’ time has been given. As far as bulldozer actions prior to the apex court verdict are concerned, I have some data. These data say, there were more than 2,000 bulldozer actions since 2017 in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, Maharashtra and Gujarat. But the biggest hue and cry was raised over demolitions done during UP CM Yogi Adityanath’s rule.
This was because Yogi’s administration had razed the ill-acquired properties of top gangster leaders and rioters like Mukhtar Ansari, Atiq Ahmed, Vikas Dubey, Vijay Mishra and others. Ill-gotten properties of mafia dons were razed and homes were built for the poor on those plots. The Supreme Court verdict has nothing to do with Yogi Adityanath’s government. UP government was not a party to the case which was before the Supreme Court. The apex court was hearing a petition filed by Jamiat Ulama-e- Hind against North Delhi Municipal Corporation and others. But when political leaders started reacting to the Supreme Court verdict, the UP government had to respond.
A spokesperson from UP government welcomed the verdict as a significant step forward and said, “this ruling will increase criminals’ fear of the aw, and it will make easier for the administration to keep a leash on mafia elements and organised professional criminals. The first requirement of good governance is rule of law. The rule of law applies to everyone.” The implication is quite clear. Yogi’s government is not going to tone down its drive against gangsters, rioters and criminal elements.
SC judgment is welcome : Need to modernize madrasas
A three-judge bench of Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, that was struck down by Allahabad High Court in March this year. The High Court had termed the Act as ‘non-secular’ and ‘unconstitutional’, but the apex court said the Act does not violate any provision of the Constitution.
In its 70-page judgment, Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said, the High Court erred in quashing the Act and by ordering shifting of all madrasa students to regular schools. The Supreme Court however struck down the provisions of the Act that allowed the UP Madrasa Board to confer graduate (Kamil) and post-graduate (Fazil) degrees. The apex court said, it was beyond the legislative competence of the state legislature as it is in conflict with the UGC Act which governs standards for higher education.
The Supreme Court judgment has cleared the clouds of uncertainty hanging over the fate of lakhs of students studying in madrasas across the state.
The apex court also made it clear that minorities have no absolute right to administer educational institutions, and the board could exercise regulatory power with approval of state government to ensure that religious minority institutions like madrasas imparted secular education of a requisite standard without destroying their minority character.
The judgment said, “State can regulate aspects of the standards of education such as course of study, qualification and appointment of teachers, health and hygiene of students, and facilities for librariers. Regulations pertaining to standards of education of qualification of teachers do not directly interfere with the administration of recognised madrasas. Such regulations are designed to prevent maldadministration of an educational institution.”
The apex court also made it clear that non-Muslim students studying in madrasas cannot be forced to study Islamic literature or follow Islamic rituals.
Muslim organizations like Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and All India Shia Personal Law Board welcomed the apex court judgement saying that the apex court has corrected the error made by High Court. There are nearly 16,500 madrasas in UP where more than 17 lakh children study.
In 2017, after becoming CM, Yogi Adityanath started the process of modernisation of madrasas, by creating a portal for registration of all madarsas. As a result, more than 5,000 madrasas that were being run illegally were wound up. Webcams were introduced to stop copying during exams. 558 recognized madrasas are being given assistance by the state in the form of salaries for teachers and staff, NCERT books and mid-day meals for students.
Overall, there were two issues relating to madrasas. One, state governments felt that modern education was not being imparted and stress was only being laid on study of Islamic scriptures.
Secondly, those who were running madrasas felt that the state government was trying to take them over by interfering in their day-to-day administration. Now that the Supreme Court has given its judgment, state government can no more interfere in their management, but the State can decide about the courses of study, syllabus and curriculum.
This judgment should be welcomed. Those running madarsas should welcome this verdict and introduce modern education in their institutions. This will help madrasa students to study in accordance with unversally accepted standards of education and get admission to good colleges. They can aspire to become doctors, engineers, lawyers or IT professionals.
Moreover, misconception must be removed about terrorists being trained in madrasas. By citing examples of a few moulvis working for terrorism in one or two, all the madrasas cannot be tarnished with the same brush. Sadly, political parties gave a political twist to the issue and limited the issue to payment of salaries to teachers working in madrasas. Stress should be laid on improving the qualifications of teachers and providing good libraries in madarsas. All stakeholders must join hands and modernize the madrasas.
Self-appointed agents of integrity should be challenged!
The unnecessary controversy raised by some opposition parties over Prime Minister Narendra Modi attending the Ganapati Puja at the residence of Chief Justice of India Y. V. Chandrachud is worrisome. More than 30 hours of political sabre-rattling took place over a merely 30-second video and a mountain was sought to be made out of a molehill. It is surprising that some opposition leaders have questioned the neutrality and integrity of the Chief Justice of India. A courtesy visit of the PM to the Chief Justice’s residence was sought to be made a topic of controversy and the question of judicial independence was raised.
The first party to raise the flag was Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena, because its case is pending in Supreme Court. Is a mere courtesy visit of the PM going to make our Chief Justice biased?
Kapil Sibal, himself a politician and also the president of Supreme Court Bar Association, first praised the CJI describing him as “a man of great personal integrity”, but in the same breath, he remarked that “no public functionary should publicize a private event…if there is a gossip around it, it is not fair to the institution.”
BJP leaders reminded how when Dr Manmohan Singh was Prime Minister, the then CJI used to visit the PM’s iftar parties. Bar Council of India chairman and BJP MP Manan Kumar Mishra said, there are some lawyers who always try to create controversies out of nothing. Let me make one thing clear. All those who have questioned the Prime Minister’s visit to the Chief Justice’s residence to attend the Ganapati Puja, are doing great injustice to Chief Justice Chandrachud. Those slyly alleging that PM Narendra Modi has done some “setting” with the CJI, or has told him something secret, probably do not know that the Prime Minister need not wait for an opportunity to attend a Puja in order to speak to the CJI.
There are several such opportunities when the PM and Chief Justice attend public functions together. On the question, why the Prime Minister made the video public, I can only say that had the PM not made the video public, there would have been a hue and cry about a secret meeting with the CJI. The same persons would have then asked why the PM did not make any video public, when he makes every video of his interaction public.
Is it Constitutionally or legally unacceptable for the Chief Justice of India to invite the Prime Minister to his residence? Was it a midnight secret rendezvous over which much hue and cry is being made. Those trying to create an issue over this courtesy visit are actually trying to exert pressure on the Chief Justice. These people know that the Chief Justice will not comment on this issue because he has to uphold the dignity of his chair.
The Prime Minister is not going to react because he has his limitations. On the other hand, these people had a field day on social media. But look at their history. Almost every Chief Justice used to do this. These are the people who used to label the Chief Election Commissioner as pliable, and question the reliability of EVMs, even before the LS election results were announced.
The same people had questioned the claims of our Armed Forces. These are the people who repeatedly try to discredit the media. These are the persons who portray themselves as self-appointed agents of integrity and try to defame and intimidate others. Time has come to give such people a strong reply instead of ignoring them.