Yesterday, Supreme Court refuse to enterain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay. The PIL aimed to assert that Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs should have the same rights as Muslims, Parsis, and Christians to manage their religious places without state interference.

The bench, consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, held that petition needed to raise more specific prayers to be considered by the court. However, the Court  did not rejected the other petitions associated with Upadhyay's PIL, which presented specific requests for a uniform endowment code. In those cases, the bench granted the Union some time to provide a response.

Upadhyay in its PIL further stated that all laws made to administer properties of temples and gurdwaras were arbitrary and violate Article 14, 15, and 26 of the Indian Constitution.

The petition stated that if necessary, the court should direct the Centre or the Law commission of India to draft a common charter for religious and charitable institutions and Uniform Code for Religious and Charitable Endowments.

Taking into account the nature of the relief sought by the PIL, the CJI stated–

"What is this prayer? You can't say direct all to be treated equally–that is already provided for under Article 14. Mr Upadhyay, file a proper petition. What are these prayers? Can these reliefs be granted? Withdraw this petition and file a petition with prayers which can be granted. See these prayers- All laws administering Gurudwaras are arbitrary? All laws?"

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud noted that the other petitions in the batch raised specific requests and challenges. These additional petitions encompassed challenges related to the appointment of Archakas in certain temples in Tamil Nadu, the closure of temples in Karnataka, as the state was responsible for managing them due to significant mismanagement issues, and various other matters.

Disinclined to entertain Upadhyay's plea, the CJI remarked–

''Mr Upadhyay, you are a lawyer, you must understand - sometimes the manner in which you pursue a cause is equally important. You cannot pursue it to show in press...this is the Supreme Court."

Upadhayay then withdrew his petition.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union Of India And Ors.