Court has respect for the equality of religions which is a fundamental constitutional tenet embodied in Article 25 of the Constitution: Supreme Court

Court has respect for the equality of religions which is a fundamental constitutional tenet embodied in Article 25 of the Constitution: Supreme Court

On Friday, the Supreme Court's division bench clarified a few points made in the addendum to the five-judge bench's ruling in the case of M. Siddiq (Dead) Through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das and Ors., which was decided in Ayodhya on November 9, 2019.

“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 delivered on 9 November 2019.”

The CJI stated that the petition submitted under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable as the matter was being called out. He explained to the Counsel that the observations in the addendum do not have the same impact as the judgment. It was further clarified that the judges' signatures are missing from the addendum. To the petitioner's pleasure, the Bench added the following explanation to the order, nonetheless.

The Bench noted that "Having set out the legal position, we close these proceedings with the observation that perhaps the perspective of the petitioner is based on a misappreciation 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."

It further noted "Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that with these observations, the petition may be closed since the grievance is duly assuaged.

The petition was filed to have certain observations in the aforementioned judgment thrown out before a bench consisting of the Chief Justice of India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and Hima Kohli. The addendum ruling contained references to the testimony of a defense witness regarding Guru Nanak's visit to the Ram Temple in Ayodhya that were objected to by the petitioner.

 

Case Details:-Manjit Singh Randhawa v. Union of India

WP(C) No. 42/2020

Read the Complete order on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/46354/46354_2019_1_3_39645_Order_11-Nov-2022.pdf

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy