Today, the Supreme Court declined to hear a PIL that called for the expunging of "Love-Jihad" remarks made in an Uttar Pradesh court's order. The PIL also sought the establishment of guidelines to ensure that judicial rulings are devoid of personal or generalized comments.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti dismissed the petition, stating it was not pressed. The court noted that the petitioner lacked locus standi, as they were not parties in the Uttar Pradesh court proceedings, and accused the petitioner of merely "sensationalizing" the issue.

During the hearing, Advocate Manas P Hameed (for petitioner) conceded in response to a court query that the petitioner was not party to the proceedings before the UP Court. In response, Justice Roy said, "You are a busybody... just interfering with something which is absolutely of no business to you. You can't be filing an Article 32 petition for a matter like this". 

Sharing a similar view, Justice Bhatti questioned how the court could expunge remarks made in an independent case, like the one at hand.

"Assuming a particular conclusion is warranted from the evidence before the Sessions court, and a conclusion is recorded which is not [relatable] to the petitioner before us, should it be expunged in an independent matter like this? We can't also examine that. Sensationalizing matter in this fashion is not correct".

The PIL challenged a Uttar Pradesh court's order that defined "Love Jihad" as a practice where Muslim men allegedly "systematically target" Hindu women for conversion to Islam through marriage, often under the guise of love and fraudulent intentions.

In the order, the Additional District and Sessions Judge of Bareilly, while sentencing a Muslim man to life imprisonment for raping a Hindu woman, remarked that the primary objective of "Love Jihad" is to establish supremacy and dominance over India by certain "anarchist elements of a particular religion," allegedly through a demographic war and international conspiracy.