SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 33727

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Yusuf Khan – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
WPC No. 1757 of 2021



##PAGE1##

CGHC010081192021 2026:CGHC:46363 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1757 of 2021 Order Reserved on 29.09.2026 Order Passed on 03.11.2026

1 - Yusuf Khan S/o Late Abdul Rahman Khan Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 7 Jawaharpara, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Abeda Khatun Wd/o Late Rahman Khan Aged About 58 Years D/o Late Abdul Rahman Khan Aged About 58 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Jahawaharpara, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 1 - Union of India Through Secretary, Department Of Minority Affairs, 11th Date: 2026.11.03 18:49:08 +0530 Floor, Pandit Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003, District : New Delhi, Delhi

2 - Chhattisgarh State Minority Commission Through Its President Chhattisgarh State Minority Commission, Old Nurses Hostel, D. K. S.

Bhawan Premises, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Collector Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

##PAGE2##

4 - Intejamiya Committee Jama Majid Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh.

5 - Haji Salim Tiggala S/o Haji Noor Mohammad Aged About 58 Years Former Sadar Of Intejamiya Committee, Jama Majid, Balod Chhattisgarh. R/o Station Road Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

6 - Jahid Ahmad Khan S/o Majid Ahmad Khan Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Kurmipara, Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

7 - Khalil Ahmad S/o Hafij Abdul Aziz Aged About 66 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Beside Jama Majid, Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

8 - M. J. Khan S/o Miya Khan Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Jawaharpara Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

9 - Salim Ahmad Khan S/o Wajir Khan Aged About 61 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Near Jama Majid Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

10 - Mohammad Asraf Rizvi S/o G. M. Rizvi Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Behind Gurudawara, Jawaharpara, Balod Chhattisgarh., District :

Balod, Chhattisgarh

11 - Mohammad Adil Aman Khan S/o Mohammad Kalim Khan Aged About 36 Years Former Secretary Of Intejamiya Committee, Jama Majid, Balod Chhattisgarh. R/o Ward No. 11, Near Putali School, Jawaharpara, Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.)

For Petitioners : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate.

For UOI : Mr. T.S. Sahu, C.G.C.

For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.

For Respondents No. 5 to 11. : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order

##PAGE3##

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are real brother and sister, challenging the Fatwa allegedly issued by respondent Nos. 4 to 11 following the marriage of the daughter of petitioner No. 2, which was solemnized on 17.08.2019 with Ali Abbas Hedari, who belongs to the Shia community, whereas the petitioners belong to the Sunni community. The petitioners contend that, through the said Fatwa, they and their family members were declared to be no longer Muslims and were directed to be socially boycotted. The petitioners allege that the Fatwa was issued in retaliation against petitioner No. 1 for lodging complaints alleging financial irregularities and embezzlement against respondent Nos. 4 to 11 before the competent authorities, including the Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board, which subsequently dissolved the Committee headed by respondent No. 4, appointed an administrator, and initiated an inquiry into its affairs. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court alleging that the impugned action was intended to harass and humiliate them and infringes their fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as adumbrated in th

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top