Application For Impleadment WP 1246 of 2020
Application For Impleadment WP 1246 of 2020
Application For Impleadment WP 1246 of 2020
IN
Versus
PAPER BOOK
2. VAKALATNAMA
IN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
IN
Versus
Lucknow 226001, UP
.A]3;3l1CaRt
integrity of India and national securitywhlCh, inter alia, are its duly
3. That the Applicant seeks to opposes the instant Writ PetltioR which
Act ensures that normativity and positive law regulates the conduct
I. Preliminary Objection
party that in fact has the largest party holding majority in the
Parliament and can well take the legislative route. The Applicant
would like to bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Court that the
note that even the Petitioner himself was once involved in Aug
.Iantar Mantar in New Delhl. The Petitioner‘ was arrested and then
in the presence or at the behest of the accused but also noting that
investigation was at a nascent stage. That as per ANI’s media
news/chargesheet-filed-against-ashwini-upadhyay-in-jantar-antar-
hate-speech-case-says-delhi-police20211103194729/, on Nov 3,
Further details are not available in public domain and the Petitioner
understand that while being arrested may itself not be sufficient for
the instant Petition may kindlybe dismissed, and thus may not be
body.
5. The Applicant would also like to bring to the notice of the Hon'ble
Hon'ble Court and most of the writ petitions filed pertain to the
masses of Índia - whlCh is the móin reason for which the rules of
locus standi had been relaxed by this Hon'ble Court. The Petitioner
ls a meddlesome interloper.
motive.
writ petition ls mala flde and purely polltlCal and is part of a larger
and scandallze the court and that a contempt must be issued against
the petitloner for the same. The instant petition 1s a serious abuse
interests detract from time and attention which courts must devote
motlve and motive for personal-political gain, and that the motive
an appropriate case.
10. That it is stated that the subject matter of the present case is not a
a PIL. Merely because, thls Hon'ble Court has jurisdiCtlOn does not
publlC lnterest lltigatloR. In any event, the fact that the outcome
may affect the members of the publiC is not a publlc interest case
parties as and when raised. Thls Hon'ble Court has dealt with many
cases, where groups have been pre-empted and quietus has been
AppllCant craves for leave and liberty to cite the same at the time
culture vve have emulated and evolved from the Vedas and
beings, our leader Shri Rajiv Gandhi rightfully thought that a bill
stated that, " This is a country where the messenger of peace was
die for o cause of the nation,’ this is a country where Lord Buddha
of India rightfully laid down Articles 23, 24, 25, 26 and so on.
everyone to follow one’s own religion and the right to maintain the
rim! great leader Shri Rajiv Gandhi thought that tlse Government
12. That when the impugned Act was being introduced in the Lok
https://parliamentofind1a nic.in/1s/lsdeb/1s10/ses1/2?O9099l0l.htm
?fbc1id=IwARl dqVSMVRZW2haM9hTESHmPU9hd3C9TFloqG
commend this Bill to Hon'ble Klemhers of this House and seek their
13. In3f. Ismail Faruqui (Dr) v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360, in
para 139, Justice Bharucha (Minority view) has taken notice of the
(Majority view) was pleased to hold that any religious group has no
14. The Ismail Faruqui (supra) is clear that the State can regulate the
of the State flows not only from Seventh Schedule but from various
is stated that the impugned law prohibits all religions equally and it
15. The above highlights the de1"inite intent of the legislature to bring
/h. That while extending his support to the Bill and lauding its
like a garden and here not one but oll the fioivers n'iil be given the
made India their home. When Babur invaded India, which Hindu
King was rullHg the country? It was Ibrahim Lodhi, who was
rulitig tlze countt jr' ct that time. Who came to India be]’ore Babur?
According to the religious people, there was war between lhe Gods
and demons r hen churning of the ocean took place. Now, who
were these demons? Why was tJiere a fight between Vishnu and
.Shiva? Ifwe go deep into the history of all this, we won't be able to
Act does so equally for all the religions by providing for equal
18. That the Act reaffiniis Independence as the moment when India
19. That the Act, recognises that the Independence provides a new
of the injustices of the past. The Act, in fact, allows a clean slate
20. That it is stated that there are actual and anecdotal evidence of
only impracticable but may also result in chaos and anarchy known
21. That the Act is also rooted in the realisation that the need to protect
22. That the plea of the Petltloner to invalidate Places of Worshlp Act
Constitution.
reality and of the need to avoid the same is evident from the
25. That this Court piohibits any such attempt in no uncertain terms in
Communalism’,
28. The Delhi High Court ln Surt?Sh Chandra v. Cnion of India, 1975
29. That the Act contrlbutes towards strengthenlng the rlghts reglmes
30. That any attempt at invalidating the Act or the norms enshrined
to the values of liberty, equality and fraternity which are the basic
stated that the causes of action for such litigation, which the
32. That theof ‘Hindus. Jalns, Buddhist, and Slklis’ to restore their
but an attempt and misleadlng the Court as the law was enacted
keeping in mind the peace and tranquillity of the soclety and the
all others and not only Hindu, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs as
choose, and since the State has treated all religious equally for a
Worship Act. It may be noted that there are many mosques as well
in many parts of India, especially Punjab region that, aher the
quletus to all such claims, and bars them for maintaining peace and
harmony.
33, That the plea of the Petitioners runs counter to the provisions of
principle’.
SCC 438 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 328 at page 506, the Court
Thus, even wlthout the Act, the plea of the Petitloners cannot be
morality.
JUDICIAL REMEDY
36. No person has absolute right to access the judicial remedy, as per
hls or her own whims and fancles. Such rlght 1s Contingent upon
Act does not curtail judlclal remedy for any guaranteed rightAnd
only bars the claims. Even the Limitation Act, 1963 does that,
the court is not taken away, but the remedy is barred. It is germane
as unconstitutloRal.
freedoms.
39. Also, the contention that the Act bars any remedy against illegal
available under the relevant laws. In fact, the Act protects the
denomination.
40. The Act protects religious places not only in form but in substance
PILGRIMAGE
41. The Act falls squarely w'ithin the competence of Parliament as the
the Petitioner to assert that the there was any pilgrimage to any
to various subject matters in List II and III which affect the lives of
(Articles 14, 15, 16, 17) and to protect religious and cultural rights
(Articles 21).
42. That the other relevantentrles for I.ist III are Entry 1 (CFlminal law
43. That the State must support the duty of every citizen in Articlcs
practlces derogatory to the dlgnity of women) and (f) (to valuc and
preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.) The duties and
valid objective.
44. It is trite to mention that the Parliament has plenary power to make
woi ship shall fall within the above mentioned entries even if it
follows:
Management of such a holy place shall Stlll lle in the hands of the
placed under dlfferent heads ln different list, Wlth the latter lylng ln
noted that merely the rlght to pray is not the same as the rlght to
llgrlmage. It lS stated, the petitioner has not claimed that there was
secures the predominance of Union List over the other two lists and
47. That in one of the grounds of the petition, it is stated that the Act
affects the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs and snubs their
bereft of any legal principles and averments, and as such does not
of what divides them and that is exactly what the intent and object
48. That it is stated that the Petitioner has wrongly contended that the
worship of only the Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs have been
the notice of this Hon'ble Court that there were numerous Mosque
State that treat all Citizens equally and does not patronize any
law takes away the rlght to profess or practlce any religlon. The
floodgates for motivated litlgation all across the country — not only
inter-f3lth, but alSO Wlthln the groups of the same falth but dlfferent
sects.
JalrlS and Buddhist, has not pleaded the tenets of the sald rellgion
and as to how the speclflc tenet is viOlated by the lmpugned
stated that, the Appllcant has done hls own research, and has not
come across any tenet in any of the sald religion that ONLY
Act, 1991.
51. That the Appllcant crax'es leave of this Hon'ble Court to file
group of cltizens who beliex'e that the 1991 Act actually is a strong
]3OlltlCal gains.
52. That the present AppllCatlon has been preferred boi:a fide and ln
humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
B. pass any such further orders and/or directions that this Hon'ble
FILED BY:
New Delhi
Filed on: 01.09.2022
IN I HE SUPREME HON'BLE COURT OF INDIA
CIVII. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. No. of 2022
In
WItI I PU ITION (G IVIL) Ix 0. 1246 OF 2020
IN "}“IlL MA'FTEJ1 OF:
DEPONNN F
VPRIFICATION:-
I, above r.amcd deponent do hereby verify that the contents of the- foregoing
Para Nos. 1 & 2 are true and coiTect to iiiy knowledge and I believe the
same to be true and that nothing materlal lfas been concealed therefrom.
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
ÎO
TliC Rcgislrar
Stipi cmc Coun of India
fi i‘
Fleasc enter my appeaianccs for the above-named Applicant/s in tliC abovc-
lzentioned Ap llCat ioe/Petition/Appeal.
Yours faithfully
Datcc.: .5.2022 f