Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Hima Kohli, J.
Manjit Singh Randhawa – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 42 of 2020
Decided On : 11-11-2022
Article 32 - Jurisdiction of Court - The court held that a petition under Article 32 would not be maintainable for seeking certain reliefs and emphasized the fundamental constitutional tenet of equality of religions embodied in Article 25 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 32 was invoked to expunge certain observations in a previous decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petition under Article 32 was not maintainable for seeking the reliefs and emphasized the respect for the equality of religions as a fundamental constitutional tenet.
Issues: Jurisdiction under Article 32, maintainability of the petition, interpretation of the decision, and the perspective of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that a petition under Article 32 would not be maintainable for seeking certain reliefs and clarified that the decision did not reflect on the faith of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and pending applications were also disposed of.
ORDER
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution has been invoked for the purpose of expunging certain observations which were contained in the addendum to the decision of the five-Judge Bench in M Siddiq (Dead) Through LRs vs Mahant Suresh Das and Others, (2020) 1 SCC 1 delivered on 9 November 2019.
2. At the outset, it needs to be noted that a petition under Article 32 would not be maintainable for the purpose of seeking the reliefs, as stated above.
3. Having set out the legal position, we close these proceedings with the observation that perhaps the perspective of the petitioner is based on a mis- appreciation of the decision. The decision cannot be construed to contain any observation reflecting on the faith of the petitioner. This Court has respect for the equality of religions which is a fundamental constitutional tenet embodied in Article 25 of the Constitution.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that with these observations, the petition may be closed since the grievance is duly assuaged.
5. The Petition is accordingly disposed of.
6. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
The fundamental constitutional tenet of equality of religions embodied in Article 25 of the Constitution.
Availability of an efficacious remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution as a factor in determining the court's jurisdiction under Article 32.
The court's jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was not applicable in this case.
The court's discretion to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136(1) is influenced by the thorough consideration and negation of challenges by the lower court.
Article 32 of the Constitution of India provides the basis for seeking the quashing of the FIR in this case.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
