Chief Justice's Court

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 699

of 2023

Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Yadav

Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Gupta,Rakesh

Kumar Gupta

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1. Mr Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for

petitioner. Mr Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate

General, assisted by Mr A.K. Goyal, learned Additional

Chief Standing Counsel and Ms. Akanksha Sharma,

learned Standing Counsel.

2. Present writ petition has been filed describing it as a

public interest litigation. It seeks to challenge the

Government Order no.772 dated 10.3.2023 issued by the

Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. Further direction

has been sought to restrain the State respondents from

giving effect to such Government Order. Punishment is

also sought to be awarded to respondent no.4 namely

Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. at Lucknow for

having allegedly committed a "crime against the

Constitution of India".

3. Learned Additional Advocate General has raised a

preliminary objection. He stated, on similar facts,

challenging the same Government Order, PIL No. 210 of

2023 (Motilal Yadav vs State of U.P.) has already been

decided by this Court sitting at Lucknow vide order dated

22.3.2023.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner

advanced his submissions and later submitted written

submissions, as also the supplementary affidavit dated

29.3.2023 and 31.3.2023 respectively.

5. In short, it is the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner, being a secular nation since its formation and

that status being duly recognized under the Constitution

of India, the State may not favour any particular religion

as there is no State religion. That being the basic

structure of the Constitution, the Government Order that

seeks to overrun that constitutional scheme, is invalid and

unenforceable. Reliance has been placed on the decision

of the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai vs Union of India,

(1994) 3 SCC 1, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of

India & Ors, (2023) SSS OnLine SC 207 and His

Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru vs

State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.

6. Insofar as reliance is being placed on the decision of

the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay

(supra), there can be no denying the fact that the

Constitution of the republic envisages a secular republic.

At the same time, it may not be forgotten that in Ashwini

Kumar Upadhyay (supra), that petitioner - Ashwini

Kumar Upadhyay had sought direction, to constitute

"Renaming Commission" so as to find out the original

names of 'ancient historical cultural religious places' that

were claimed to be named after barbaric foreign invaders.

In that context, the Supreme Court observed as under:

"8. We are of the view that the questions of law raised by petitioner do not arise.

9. The present and future of a country cannot remain a prisoner of the past. The

governance of Bharat must conform to Rule of law, secularism, constitutionalism

of which Article 14 stands out as the guarantee of both equality and fairness in

the State's action.

10. The founding fathers contemplated India to be a republic which is not merely

to be conflated to a body polity having an elected President which is the

conventional understanding. But it also involves ensuring rights to all sections of

people based on it being a democracy. It is important that the country must move

forward. For achieving the sublime goals which are enshrined in Part IV - that is

the Directive Principles, but bearing in mind the fundamental rights also

guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution, which have been described as the two

wheels of the chariot of the State, both of which are indispensable, for the

smooth progress of the nation, actions must be