On Monday, January 25, the Supreme Court reminded the Uttar Pradesh government that a Supreme Court is also a constitutional court and cannot be taken lightly. The observation of the Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde, followed a series of significant judgments and orders from the Allahabad Supreme Court as people knocked on his door to protect their fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court of Allahabad has taken this opportunity every time and reaffirmed the importance of the rights to privacy and autonomy while respecting civil liberties. It has given an example of how a constitutional court must act when the delivery of justice is an immediate necessity and not a luxury that can wait. Allahabad HC grew up in the midst of a challenging political and social atmosphere in Uttar Pradesh. Here are a few examples of how the Supreme Court has taken a stand:
Posters / banners from anti-CAA protesters
The HC had made a strong exception in March 2020 to banners put up by the state government to seek damages from individuals allegedly involved in the destruction of public property during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in Lucknow were. The court was heavily involved in the government’s “name and shame” policy, calling it “undemocratic”, apart from violating the right to privacy.
“In the present case, it is not about personal injury to persons whose personal data is given on the banner, but about violations of the valuable constitutional value and its shameless representation by the administration. The cause as such is the undemocratic functioning of government authorities, which should treat all members of the public with respect and courtesy and should behave at all times in such a way that the constitutional and democratic values are preserved ”, it says in a strongly worded HC order.
The HC described the state government’s move as an “absolute encroachment on personal freedom” and ordered the UP government to remove the hoardings immediately and to submit a report to the court on compliance with the regulations.
The imprisonment of Dr. Kafeel Khan under the NSA
Six months after he was charged on one or the other charge, it was in September 2020 that Kafeel Khan got off the hook and the Supreme Court overturned his detention under the National Security Law. The HC ordered his immediate release and said the UP government had “selectively read” his allegedly anti-CAA speech at Aligarh Muslim University. It was stressed that the doctor had demanded national integrity and not instigated violence, while also stating that there was no reason to force the NSA on him or to extend his detention.
“A full reading of the pretend speech reveals no effort to promote hatred or violence. Nor does it threaten the peace and tranquility of the city of Aligarh anywhere. The address calls for national integrity and unity among citizens. The speech also rejects any kind of violence. It appears that the district judge selectively read and selectively mentioned some sentences from the speech, ignoring his true intent, ”the HC order explained.
Khan was a vocal critic of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s governments at the center and in the UP.
Expresses concern about abuse of slaughter law
In October, the Supreme Court raised concerns about the abuse of the 1955 Uttar Pradesh Cow Slaughter Law against innocent people and the lack of forensic evidence to prove that the meat recovered was beef.
While giving bail to Rahmuddin, a person booked for cow slaughter, the HC said, “The law is being abused against innocent people. Whenever meat is obtained, it is usually displayed as cow meat (beef) without any examination or analysis by the forensic laboratory. In most cases, meat is not sent for analysis. Accused remain in prison for an offense that may not have been committed at all. “
It noted that if the law against slaughtering cows is to be implemented in letter and spirit, cows that are old or not milking and abandoned by the owners must be cared for.
The right to choose one’s life partner is a fundamental right
Days before the UP government announced the anti-conversion ordinance under the name of so-called love jihad, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the sanctity of interfaith marriages in November 2020.
“The right to live with a person of your choice, regardless of the religion they profess, is an integral part of the right to life and personal freedom,” the court said. Adding interference to a personal relationship would seriously encroach on the right to freedom of choice for either person.
“Disregarding the choice of a person at the age of the majority would not only contradict the freedom of choice of an adult individual, but also jeopardize the concept of unity in diversity,” said the HC. It overturned an FIR made by a man against the husband was submitted to his daughter, whom she married after converting to Islam.
The court also found that its two previous judgments against marriages made after alleged conversions were not legally good because they failed to take into account the rights to freedom, equality and privacy.
Women have the right to live on their own terms
In a December ruling, the Allahabad Supreme Court reunited a Hindu woman and her Muslim husband, stressing that “she has the choice to live her life on her own terms.” The court ruled that the man who complained that his wife had been sent to her parents against her will by the Nari Niketan or the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) had filed a habeas corpus motion.
“Since the corpus (woman) has reached the age of the majority and she has the choice to live her life on her own terms, and she has expressed that she wants to live with her husband, she can go after her own Choice without moving any restriction or obstruction by third parties, “ruled the court. The court also overturned an FIR registered against the man for allegedly kidnapping the woman.
Abuse of power in the Tablighi Jamaat case
The Supreme Court criticized the appeal of Section 307 (attempted murder) under the Indian Penal Code against a person from Mau who attended the Tablighi Jamaat community in Delhi’s Nizamuddin in March 2020.
“After reviewing the material, the filing of charges against the applicant according to Section 307 IPC at first sight reflects the abuse of legal force,” said the HC when it issued the criminal case against the man concerned.
The court also ordered police officers to provide personal affidavits to justify the factual reliance on Section 307.
The government is dropping the conversion fee after HC protection
In December, the Supreme Court prevented the state government from arresting a 32-year-old Muslim man from Muzaffarnagar district – one of the first to be indicted under the UP’s controversial anti-conversion law. The man was accused of having an affair with the wife of a Hindu man. The court had said at the time: “The victim is admittedly an adult who understands their welfare. She and the petitioner have a fundamental right to privacy and are adult adults who are aware of the consequences of their alleged relationship. “
Later in January, the state government informed the Supreme Court that the police had dropped the charges against him because no evidence was found during the investigation. “During the investigation, no evidence was found that the defendant Nadeem had an illegal relationship with the woman.
No evidence was found during the investigation to support the claim that Nadeem was seeking her religious conversion as claimed by the applicant, “the affidavit reads.
Not mandatory before interfaith marriages
The Supreme Court issued another progressive decision earlier this month, ruling that the publication of a notice of intended marriage under the Special Marriage Act (SMA) and the solicitation of objections were not mandatory. The court stated that any additional legal burden on a couple as a result of an interfaith marriage would constitute a violation of their rights to equality, dignity and privacy.
The HC interpreted the SMA in the light of the recent judgments of the Supreme Court on data protection and freedom and stated that it was optional for the parties to the intended marriage to request in writing from the marriage commissioner to publish a notice or not to publish a notice for the invitation of Objections from the public.
“Making such publication compulsory would encroach on fundamental rights to freedom and privacy. This would also affect the couple’s freedom to choose marriage without the interference of state and non-state actors, ”said the HC.
Control of the conversion ordinance
The Supreme Court has shown its determination to review the constitutionality of the UP’s ban on unlawful conversion of the 2020 Religious Ordinance, despite repeated attempts by the state government to remove the matter from its jurisdiction. In response to a series of petitions, the additional advocate general of the state government had initially asked the HC not to examine the law, as similar petitions were pending in the Supreme Court. But without success. Not only did the HC deny a motion to adjourn, but they also asked the government to submit its affidavit in response to the petitions to document its position. The UP government then had to submit its affidavit.
When the state government did not receive any relief from the HC, they turned to the Supreme Court and submitted a transfer application. It asked the Supreme Court to prevent the HC from reviewing the ordinance.
But this endeavor also failed. On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to entertain his transfer request and ordered the state to go to the HC on February 6 when the case is next heard.
While the constitutional validity of the controversial ordinance against forced conversion has not yet been decided, the Allahabad Supreme Court, through frequent interventions to underscore the importance of fundamental rights, has undoubtedly created a sense of confidence in the culmination of due legal process in a justice-based decision
Comments are closed.