DELHI HIGH COURT
A.K.Sikri, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Rajiv Shakdher, JJ.
Court On Its Own Motion - Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. - Resopndent
WP (C) No. 4323 of 2012, WP (C) No. 4432 of 2012 & Cont. Cas. (C) No. 459 of 2012, Cont. Cas. (C) No. 460 of 2012
Decided On : 30-07-2012
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 25 and 26 - Freedom of pre-profession, practice and to manage religious affairs - Public interest litigation - On account of the grievance made regarding same unauthorized construction on public place - Right of freedom given under Articles 25 and 26 considered - Such freedom shall not be the one which disturbs or endangers public order and might lead to a serious situation of disturbed law and order - State has to be neutral in all cases - Prayers are not allowed to be offered at the site - Decision will depend on the outcome of the result of investigation to be carried on by the ASI - Petition disposed of.
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
1. Religion is said to be the opium of the masses. It can be both a great unifying factor, but also disruptive of social peace where in the name of a religion, extreme postures are taken. It is the bounden-duty of all sane members of the society to ensure that the lives of general public are not affected by posturing on matters of religion. The common man, as it is, has his hands full making his two ends meet. The diversity in religion and culture of our country is, thus, to be treated as a unifying factor rather than disrupting peace. The three limbs of the system being Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, thus, have a duty to perform as enshrined under the Constitution of India, 1950 (for short, ‘the Constitution’).
2. We have entertained the present public interest litigation (for short, ‘PIL’) on account of the grievance made regarding some unauthorized construction stated to be going on at Subhash Park facing Red Fort, which was likely to create an adverse law and order situation. We passed Orders on 20.07.2012 after calling upon the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short, ‘MCD’) to apprise the Court about the situation prevailing at the site. The site in question had, in fact, been handed over to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (for short, ‘DMRC’) some time ago for purposes of construction in respect of metro rail project. It appears that the DMRC washed its hands of the land in question diverting its path possibly because of the ground reality and in view of the apprehension of what actually came to transpire subsequently. There was apparently some communication gap insofar as the handing over site back to the MCD is concerned and the land remained unattended for some time. It is during this interregnum period that some digging at the site is stated to have been carried out and articles found, which were alleged to be of archeological significance.
3. The records produced before the Court show that various authorities passed on the buck to each other. The Archeological Survey of India (for short, ‘ASI’) did not step in despite the request. Not only that as a sequitur to the discovery of these articles, even some local persons started raising construction, without obtaining any permission, on the land, which undisputedly belongs to the MCD. This construction apparently continued unabated despite intervention at the highest level as a meeting is stated to have been called by the Chief Minister of Delhi, which was attended by the Commissioner of Police, Director General of ASI and the Officers/officials from the Ministry of Urban Development. It may be added here that Subhash Park is stated to fall within the restricted zone of two protected sites, i.e., Sunehri Masjid and Red Fort and, thus, any construction in the said area required the permission from the National Monuments Authority (for short, ‘NMA’). On 19.07.2012, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi even ordered the North Delhi Municipal Corporation and the police authorities to stall the construction at the site. It, however, appears that intervention of the authorities only took place in pursuance to the Orders passed by this Court on 20.07.2012. In terms of the said Order, this Court opined that it was the ASI, which ought to take possession of the site to carry out necessary exercise and determine the significance of what is found at site. We took note of a letter of Mr. Shoaib Iqbal dated 13.06.2012 produced by the authorities wherein he himself had requested for intervention of the Chief Minister for handing over the site to the ASI; for excavation and re-building of what he claimed to be the Akbr-a-badi Masjid; and for stoppage of the work being carried out by the DMRC. We further opined that it was not proper for him or any other person to start construction over the site, but such a step had possibly arisen on account of lack of any timely action. The significance of the r
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.