Monday, April 15, 2024
HomeNewsThe Supreme Court declines to take on questions that are fundamentally religious

The Supreme Court declines to take on questions that are fundamentally religious

The Supreme Court said it would not direct the Union or state governments to draft a specific policy relating to the management of holy sites on Wednesday, staying clear of strictly religious matters.

“We won’t give the government orders to do x, y, or z in regards to places of worship. That is solely a policy or a subject for Parliament. Making a good law is an issue of legislative strategy. A bench consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra declared, “We will not enter the legislative realm.

The court was hearing a PIL brought by advocate-petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, who asked that the Union and state governments be instructed to make sure that Muslims and other faiths have the same rights as Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains when it comes to controlling their houses of worship. It stated that Article 25 of the Constitution already provided all religious denominations with this liberty.

The PIL was rejected because, according to solicitor general Tushar Mehta, it was “vaguely drafted” and that “every religious denomination has the right to manage their places of worship under Article 25 of the Constitution.” According to Upadhyay, the government in Delhi managed the Kalka Temple but not the Jama Masjid.

Although the petition could not be maintained, the SG noted Upadhyay may have a valid argument and suggested he contact the administration. However, the bench declared, “Such petitions are problematic. Sometimes it’s vital to investigate these concerns in a certain way. A PIL is not submitted just to get attention from the media.

The bench did consent to consider three other petitions, however, that contested the government’s control over religious institutions in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Puducherry. These petitions were brought by senior attorney C. S. Vaidyanathan, attorney Sai Deepak, and politician Subramanian Swamy.

The SC declared that the court would deal with these petitioners’ particular challenges to the laws passed by the states. Upadhyay dropped his petition and promised to speak up in one of the ongoing cases.