The Supreme Court Today (Jan 2) came down heavily upon a man for making an attempt to “sensationalise” observations made by a Bareilly court, purportedly against the Muslim community, in a case related to ‘love jihad’. A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti sought to know the locus standi of the petitioner Anas in the matter, while making it clear that observations made on the basis of evidence can’t be expunged in a petition filed under Article 32 of Constitution. “Who are you and how are you concerned with the matter?,” the bench asked the petitioner.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday criticized a man for attempting to “sensationalise” observations made by a Bareilly court in a case related to ‘love jihad.’
The remarks in question, purportedly directed at the Muslim community, were part of a judgment in a sensitive case.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti questioned the petitioner, Anas, about his locus standi in the matter and expressed dissatisfaction with his intentions.
The bench asked,
“Who are you, and how are you concerned with the matter?”
-making it clear that observations based on evidence cannot be removed through a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.
They further stated,
“You are sensationalising this, and it is not correct. You are just a busybody and have no locus. If there are some observations made on the basis of evidence…can we expunge this?”
The court questioned whether it was appropriate to entertain such a petition under Article 32 in this case. The bench also offered the petitioner’s counsel a choice to withdraw the plea or face its dismissal. During the hearing, the bench contemplated whether conclusions drawn based on evidence presented in court should be expunged in unrelated cases.
In October 2024, a fast-track court in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, made remarks while sentencing a Muslim man to life imprisonment in a case involving allegations of rape and other offenses.
The case stemmed from a woman’s statement, which she later reportedly retracted. Initially, the woman claimed she met the accused, who introduced himself as Anand Kumar at a coaching center, but later revealed that he was a Muslim named Aalim.
The judge in the case made controversial observations about the concept of ‘love jihad.’
He stated,
“The primary aim of ‘love jihad’ is to alter demographics and stir international tensions, driven by radical factions within a religious group. Essentially, it refers to the deceptive conversion of non-Muslim women to Islam through fraudulent marriages.”
The judge also noted,
“These illegal conversions are carried out by certain extremist individuals who either engage in or support such activities. However, it is important to note that these actions are not reflective of the entire religious community.”
The judgment further suggested financial and foreign involvement in such cases, stating,
“The process of ‘love jihad’ involves significant financial resources, and in this case, it is likely that foreign funding is involved.”
The Supreme Court’s firm stance underscored the importance of addressing issues based on evidence and legal principles, while discouraging the politicization or sensationalization of sensitive matters.
This case highlights the necessity of handling controversial topics with a focus on justice and fairness.
Case Title:
ANAS V Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 823/2024
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Love Jihad
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
