HC questions locus standi of petitioners on plea against ban on Bahraich urs
Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of the
Allahabad high court
on Friday asked the
locus standi
(right to sue) of the petitioners to file the plea challenging the order of local administration restraining the mela committee from organizing annual urs on the dargah of
Syed Salar Masood Ghazi
in Bahraich.
Granting time to petitioners, the bench fixed May 19 as the next date of hearing.
A bench of justice AR Masoodi and justice AK Srivastava (I) passed the order on the writ petition filed by
Waqf No. 19
, Dargah Sharif, Bahraich.
The bench asked the petitioners to prove their right to sue in the present case and only then would it hear the plea on merit.
Appearing on behalf of petitioners, advocate LP Mishra said that if Kumbh could be organized, why 'urs' was not being allowed.
He claimed that the govt was discriminating on the basis of religion and it was the violation of right to profess religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
The bench, however, said that it was the right of the court to be satisfied if the petition was maintainable or not.
"Without being satisfied on this aspect, we will not proceed further," the bench said.
Mishra requested the court to fix Saturday for the next hearing and assured that he would place the necessary documents before the court. However, the bench refused to fix Saturday as it was a holiday. The court asked Mishra to move proper application before the chief justice in this regard as only he could constitute a special bench on holidays.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Court dismisses bail plea of travel vlogger held for spying
A local court in Haryana's Hisar on Wednesday dismissed the bail application of travel vlogger Jyoti Rani, who was arrested over three weeks ago on charges of spying and passing on secret information to Pakistani intelligence operatives. Moving the bail application in the court of Judicial Magistrate Sunil Kumar, Ms. Rani's counsel, Kumar Mukesh, had argued that the FIR in the case was based on the interrogation of the accused prior to her arrest and was 'liable to be quashed, as it in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India'. Opposing her bail plea, the police contended that the accused, if released, could influence the investigation.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
HC to TN: Issue GO for ‘No caste, no religion' certificates
Chennai: Madras high court has directed the Tamil Nadu govt to issue an appropriate order enabling its revenue department to issue 'No Caste No Religion' certificates to applicants. The court noted that citizens claiming such certificates is laudable and, in the long run, would promote the prohibition of caste-based discrimination. It would also serve as an eye-opener for like-minded individuals, according to Justice M S Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar. H Santhosh approached the court seeking a direction to the Thirupathur collector to issue such a certificate. On Feb 22, 2024, a single judge of the court dismissed his plea. Aggrieved, he moved the present appeal, submitting that he intends to raise his children in a casteless and religion-free society. He declared he never claimed any benefit from the govt under caste or religious reservation and does not intend to claim any benefits in the future. Objecting to the appeal, the govt contended that tahsildars are not empowered to issue such a certificate. In response, the court pointed out three similar certificates issued by tahsildars of Tirupathur, Coimbatore, and Ambattur in 2019 and 2022. The court stated that even when there is a constitutional mandate under Article 25, the revenue authorities cannot evade this constitutional obligation by citing the absence of any particular rule or GO. Accordingly, the court called upon the govt to pass the necessary GO, with specific instructions to the revenue authorities to positively entertain applications seeking the grant of a certificate of "No Caste No Religion." While the Constitution of India prohibits caste-based discrimination, the bench added that caste and religion still play a significant role in social life, politics, education, and employment through reservation policies.
NDTV
5 hours ago
- NDTV
On Woman Judge's Plea For Childcare Leave, Jharkhand Court's Response
New Delhi: A woman judge in Jharkhand who challenged the High Court's decision to curtail her childcare leave, or CCL, cannot take more than what she has been offered, the High Court has informed the Supreme Court. Doing that will set a precedent and affect the district judiciary, the top court has been told. The Additional District Judge, a single parent, has contended that she had sought six months out of the 730 days she is allowed. Earlier, the Supreme Court had asked Jharkhand High Court to reconsider the matter. The judges said it was better that the high court revisit the issue, since the top court's directions could set a precedent. The court had sought a response from the Jharkhand government and the high court registry on May 29. Today, a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan -- hearing the submissions of the Jharkhand high court and the judge's counsels -- issued a fresh notice to the High Court when she flagged that after she moved top court, some adverse remarks were made in her Annual Confidential Report, suggesting performance counselling. The high court said it has reconsidered her prayers and granted her 92 days of CCL but granting more (total 8 months) will become a precedent and impact district judiciary. The judge had sought 194 days more days. The judicial officer had sought leave from June and December in view of her child's exam. According to the Childcare Leave Rules applicable to the judicial officers, the judge is entitled to up to 730 days of leave during her service tenure and she sought six months of the entitlement, she has argued in her petition. "She is a single parent from the lowest strata of society," the judge's lawyer said, and underscored her "impressive" service record in which she had disposed of over 4,000 cases in over two-and-a-half years. "It is submitted that the Petitioner's application for grant of leave was mechanically rejected without assigning any valid reason, whereas the application of another judicial officer for grant of CCL was approved by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi. Such differential treatment, without assigning any reason may also violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India," the plea read. The judge also contended that after completing three years in Hazaribagh, she had applied for transfer to Bokaro or Ranchi, citing that those places offer better prospects of education for her son, who wanted to do his plus-two in science. He was to get admission for Class 11 in March. But her request was not granted and she was transferred to Dumka -- 230 km from Hazaribagh that takes 8 hours of travel by train. The top court will again hear the matter after 4 weeks.
