New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly criticized a man for attempting to "sensationalize" observations made by a court in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, purportedly against the Muslim community in a case wherein the judgement described 'love jihad'.
The matter came up before a bench comprising justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti. "Who are you and how are you concerned with the matter," the bench queried the counsel, and also asked about the locus standi of the petitioner Anas. V in the matter.
The apex court told the petitioner’s counsel that observations made on the basis of evidence cannot be expunged in a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The bench told the petitioner’s counsel it is an attempt to sensationalize the matter, which is not correct, and asked the counsel if it can really entertain a petition filed under Article 32.
"You are just a busy body and have no locus. If there are some observations made on the basis of evidence, can we expunge it?", said the bench.
After hearing submissions, the bench asked the counsel if he was ready to withdraw the petition or it would dismiss it. The matter was dismissed as withdrawn.
The petitioner, who is a lawyer from Kerala, said: “The impugned remarks include allegations of ‘love jihad’, giving a definition to the term ‘love jihad’, assertions of international funding purportedly linked to this alleged phenomenon and further direction to the Superintendent of Police of the District to incorporate Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Illegal Conversion Act, 2021 in all such cases in future”.
The plea, filed through advocate Jose Abraham, said such observations were made without any reliance on evidence or material on record. These were entirely unrelated to the adjudication of the case. The judgement was widely disseminated through various media platforms across the nation, it said.
“These remarks not only vilify the Muslim community but also threaten the harmonious coexistence of all religions in India. It is pertinent to highlight that the High Court of Allahabad, in its order dated March 19, 2024 in criminal revision No. 1326 of 2024, had previously expunged similar remarks made by the same learned Judge in an earlier order”, the lawyer said in the plea.
It said the sessions judge made “unwarranted, sweeping, and extrajudicial remarks” targeting a particular religion. The remarks were entirely unrelated to the facts and issues of the case and exceeded the scope of judicial propriety and impartiality expected of a judge, it submitted. ”The remarks made by the Sessions Judge vilify the Muslim community without any statutory or evidentiary backing, which amounts to a breach of judicial neutrality and infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution,” the plea said.
The plea recalled how the apex court has consistently held in various judgements that judges must refrain from making personal opinions, sweeping comments, or extrajudicial observations that are irrelevant to the adjudication of the case at hand, as such conduct undermines judicial discipline and institutional integrity.
“The judicial pronouncement in question infringes upon the Petitioner's fundamental rights as a follower of Islam, including the right to equality and dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as the Petitioner was personally affected by the derogatory remarks,” the plea noted.
In October, last year, a fast-track court in Bareilly, made certain observations while convicting an individual and described the term 'love jihad'. The observations were made while awarding life sentence to a Muslim man to serve his 'entire life' in jail. The sentencing came even as the woman complainant retracted her statement against the man.
On the basis of the woman's original statement, a case of rape and other offences was registered. The woman claimed that she married a man whom she met in a coaching centre. He introduced himself as Anand Kumar but after the marriage, it came out as a Muslim and revealed his name to be Aalim.
