The Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, reprimanded BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay and advised him to withdraw his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the maintenance and management of properties of Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist religious institutions. The court’s admonition came after it was highlighted that the plea seemed more aimed at gaining media attention rather than addressing a genuine public concern.
Justice DY Chandrachud remarked,
“In the hallowed halls of justice, the essence of a fair and impartial trial lies in the steadfast embrace of judicial calm. It is incumbent upon a judge to exude an aura of tranquillity, offering a sanctuary of reason and measured deliberation.”
He further addressed Upadhyay, saying,
“Look at your PIL prayer. The prayer should be something we can consider. Your prayer seems to be for gaining popularity and staying in the media. First, withdraw your petition, or we are going to dismiss it.”
Following the court’s stern stance, BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay decided to withdraw his petition. Although Upadhyay intended to file another plea, Justice Chandrachud asserted that the current petition would need to be withdrawn first. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also pointed out that Upadhyay tends to inform the media about his PILs before the court even gets a chance to review them. He added that the issues Upadhyay wants the court to address in his petition are already enshrined in the Constitution.
The crux of the PIL filed in the Supreme Court was a plea for a uniform law for the management of all religious places across the country. The petition argued that Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, and Jain communities should have the same rights over the maintenance and management of their religious places as the Muslim community. The plea also emphasized that the current laws allowing state governments to control temples, gurudwaras, and other religious places of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists should be annulled as they are against the provisions of the Constitution.
Upadhyay’s petition further contended that these communities should have the right to create movable and immovable assets for their religious places. The plea also called for the existing laws governing the control of temples and other religious places to be discarded. Additionally, it urged the central government and the Law Commission to draft a
“Common Charter for Religious and Charitable Institutions”
and establish a uniform law.
This episode underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring that PILs serve genuine public interests and are not merely tools for publicity or political maneuvering.
Also read- Supreme Court Mandates Internal Complaint Committees For Harassment Reporting (lawchakra.in)
