The Supreme Court dismissed case while allowing parties to seek proper legal remedies, clarifying that only “effective interim or final orders” can be challenged. The CJI assured that the pending plea seeking stay on Section 4 will be listed after the nine-judge Bench matter concludes.
On January 22, 2026, the Supreme Court heard an important matter regarding arrangements for offering Namaz and the scope of third-party intervention in ongoing proceedings. The hearing saw detailed exchanges between the Bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), senior counsel Salman Khurshid, and Advocate Vishnu Jain, who had moved an intervention application.
At the outset, senior counsel Salman Khurshid informed the Court that he agreed to a proposal regarding the management of Namaz prayers. He assured the Bench that the expected number of people coming for Namaz between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. would be communicated in advance to the District Magistrate.
This, he indicated, would help the administration prepare adequately and ensure that the religious gathering takes place peacefully and without disturbance.
The Court was also informed that the local administration may issue free passes or adopt other suitable measures to maintain law and order and to ensure that the rituals are conducted smoothly. The focus of the discussion remained on balancing religious practices with public order and administrative coordination.
During the hearing, Advocate Vishnu Jain, appearing for the respondent and seeking to intervene in the matter, attempted to address the Court. He said,
“May I say something? This is an application for intervention.”
Counsel for the petitioner immediately objected, stating,
“Today is the… You are not the party respondent.”
The Chief Justice then questioned the maintainability of such an intervention in the present circumstances. He observed,
“This entire order is passed by this court in a matter filed by someone else seeking any XYZ relief. You are agreed by some action of a court, right? A judicial action. In challenging that order… Why not?”
The CJI further cautioned against relying on external assurances and raised concerns about the consequences of judicial orders if circumstances change. He remarked,
“please don’t bank upon their reputation. Why your action? If suppose we pass an order today in your favour and he withdraws his reputation tomorrow, where this order will be?”
Advocate Vishnu responded,
“No, no, we are not concerned with that. My lord, only thing is that the proceedings before the civil judge should be…
CJI said,
That’s because our advice is unfortunately free of cost. That’s why it doesn’t impress the people.”
The Chief Justice assured that the issue would be examined by the Court, stating,
“We passed the order, you have brought to the notice of the court. Let us see how the court will deal with that”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also addressed the procedural aspect of the case. He explained,
“This court has directed suits were to be instituted, but they may not be proceeded. Right? Now, a suit has been instituted and a petition under order 7, rule 10 for not impleading Union of India as a defendant was agitated and dismissed. There are dismissals here. Not a party in the suit.”
The Bench further clarified that proper remedies must be pursued through the appropriate legal channels. It observed,
“You may take your remedy, but how can you bring this? Let’s come up. When three of them are parties, Darga is a party. now Darga committee is a party.”
On the issue of interim and final orders, the Chief Justice provided further clarity on the Court’s earlier directions. He stated,
“You will have to wait for the order is passed, because the order is qualified. They will not pass any effective interim order or final order. So someone will have to bring that the order passed is within the mischief of effective interim order or final order.”
He elaborated further, saying,
“If anyone is able to make out, then one can well argue that the court has gone contrary to the directions issued by the court. But if suppose the order is only issued notice, or order parties may file their counter written statement, rejoinder, and so on so issued, you will say these are all procedural orders. None of the orders is effective order.”
After hearing the submissions, the Court dismissed but granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies available under law. This means that while the intervention application was not entertained at this stage, the concerned party is free to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with legal procedure.
Before the hearing concluded, Advocate Vishnu pointed out that another application seeking vacation of the interim order and a stay on Section 4 had not yet been listed. He submitted that the application had been filed in July 2025 and was still pending consideration.
In response, the Chief Justice directed the counsel to check with the Registry regarding the listing status and assured that the matter would be listed. The Bench indicated that the case may soon be taken up for final hearing. However, the Chief Justice clarified that hearing dates would be finalized only after the conclusion of an ongoing matter before a nine-judge Bench.
The hearing reflects the Supreme Court’s emphasis on procedural discipline, judicial hierarchy, and the importance of following proper remedies under law. It also highlights the Court’s careful approach in ensuring that interim and procedural orders are not misconstrued as final directions, especially in sensitive matters involving religious practices and public order.
Case Title:
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS W.P.(C) No. 1246/2020 PIL-W
Click Here to Read More Reports on Namaz Case
