Back
1998 Supreme(SC) 70
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. RAY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.
Sayed Ashraf Hussain and others, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 4025 of 1982,
D/- 15-1-1998.
Writ petitions are not the appropriate forum for resolving disputed questions of fact. Matters involving sensitive religious sentiments and potential threats to public tranquillity should be addressed through representations to the government for consideration on their merits.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed questions of fact - High Court declined to interfere in writ petitions where the existence of certain rights claimed by a religious community were not admitted by the respondents - Such disputed questions should not be adjudicated within the scope of writ petitions.
(B) Public Tranquillity - Sensitive and emotive issues involving religious sentiments between two sects - Matters that are potentially dangerous to public tranquillity are appropriately addressed by the State Government considering representations on their own merit to maintain harmony in society.
Facts of the case:
Writ petitions were filed by individuals claiming certain rights for a religious community. The High Court observed that the petitions were filed in individual capacities and declined to interfere because the rights claimed were not admitted by the respondents, rendering them disputed questions of fact. However, the High Court noted the sensitivity of the matter and suggested that the government pass suitable orders to maintain social harmony.
Findings of Court:
The court found that no interference with the High Court's order was warranted. It observed that the matter is highly sensitive, involving religious sentiments between two sects, which could potentially disturb public tranquillity.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere in the writ petitions due to disputed questions of fact and whether the matter should be referred to the government for consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: Disputed questions of fact should not be decided in writ petitions. In cases involving sensitive religious sentiments and potential threats to public tranquillity, the appropriate course of action is for the government to consider representations made by the aggrieved parties on their own merit.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
writ jurisdiction
-
maintainability
- disputed questions of fact
-
maintainability
-
writ jurisdiction
-
administrative law
- government representations
-
public law
-
public order
- public tranquillity
-
public order
JUDGMENT :- Two writ petitions namely W.P. No. 1736/82 and W.P. No. 144/80 were filed before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court by Ashraf Hussain and others. The High Court has observed in disposing of the writ petitions that the writ petitioners filed the writ petitions in their individual capacity and not representing the Shia community. The correctness of such observation has been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not necessary for us to make any observation whether writ petition was filed by same members of the Shia community or the same was made in representative capacity. It appears that the High Court has not interfered in the writ petition by indicating that existence of certain rights claimed by the Shia community as indicated in the writ petitions were not admitted by the respondents. The High Court, therefore, was of the view that such disputed questions should not be gone into in the writ petitions. The High Court, however, observed that the matter was very sensitive and suitable orders were required to be passed by the Government so that harmony is maintained in the society. We do not think that interference against such order of the High Court is called for. These appeals are, therefore, disposed of. As it appears to us that the matter is very sensitive involving not only the religious sentiments between the two sects of the Muslim community but the disputes between two sects are potentially dangerous to disturb public tranquillity, it will be only appropriate that if a proper representation is made by the appellants or other members of the Shia community to the State Government, such representation should be considered on its own merit by paying proper attention to the sensitve and emotive issues. In view of the disposal of the appeal, no order need be passed on the application for substitution.
Order accordingly.
