SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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.

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top