Mohd. Aslam Alias Bhure Vs. Union of India and OthersB
EmailAppeal: Writ petition (C) No. 131 of 1997.
Petitioner: Mohd. Aslam Alias Bhure
Respondent: Union of India and OthersB
Apeal: Writ petition (C) No. 131 of 1997.
Judges: A.M. AHMADI, C.J. &SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 14, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. M.M. Kashyap, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 25, 26, 32, 141 – Places of worship – Court’s previous order to Governments to do every thing for protection – Order of status quo passed by Court below – Fresh petition highlighting difficulties in placing, strengthening or improving upon bar-ricades – Held that orders were clear and order of status quo cannot prevent them to do everything necessary for protection of place of worship – No order of any subordinate Court can run counter to the orders of Supreme Court.
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 25, 26, 32, 141 – Places of worship – Court’s previous order to Governments to do every thing for protection – Order of status quo passed by Court below – Fresh petition highlighting difficulties in placing, strengthening or improving upon bar-ricades – Held that orders were clear and order of status quo cannot prevent them to do everything necessary for protection of place of worship – No order of any subordinate Court can run counter to the orders of Supreme Court.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. While disposing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 541 of 1995 we had observed as under :
“We have no doubt that the state and the Central Government will do everything that is necessary to protect the places of worship i.e. the two mosques in question, and if for that purpose they need any directions from this Court on account of impediment they would be at liberty to move this Court.
We, for the present, therefore, do not deem it necessary to give any direction but as stated above, if any directions are necessary it would be open to either of the Governments or the concerned (sic) to approach this Court….”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before us Annexure ‘H’ (page 48) stating that an order passed by the learned Judge for maintaining status quo has caused some diffi-culty, in that, the Administration and police officials think that on account of that order they are not in a position to strengthen the barricades, add to them or improve upon them. We do not see any reason why the authority should think that the status quo order prevents them from strengthening the barricades or adding to them or improving upon them. By our order dated 17-8-1995 we had made it clear that the authorities will do everything that is necessary to protect the places of worship which would entitle them to take all steps that are necessary in that behalf and the status quo order cannot preclude them from doing so if that is considered necessary for maintenance of public peace, tranquillity and public order. We do not think that the Government and police authorities would have any difficulty in understanding out previous order and to implement the same since we had in no uncertain terms permitted them to do every-thing that is necessary to protect the place of worship. No order of any subordinate court can be construed to run counter to this Court’s order. We, therefore, think that the petitioner’s appre-hension is misplaced and hence we dismiss the petition.
1. While disposing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 541 of 1995 we had observed as under :
“We have no doubt that the state and the Central Government will do everything that is necessary to protect the places of worship i.e. the two mosques in question, and if for that purpose they need any directions from this Court on account of impediment they would be at liberty to move this Court.
We, for the present, therefore, do not deem it necessary to give any direction but as stated above, if any directions are necessary it would be open to either of the Governments or the concerned (sic) to approach this Court….”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before us Annexure ‘H’ (page 48) stating that an order passed by the learned Judge for maintaining status quo has caused some diffi-culty, in that, the Administration and police officials think that on account of that order they are not in a position to strengthen the barricades, add to them or improve upon them. We do not see any reason why the authority should think that the status quo order prevents them from strengthening the barricades or adding to them or improving upon them. By our order dated 17-8-1995 we had made it clear that the authorities will do everything that is necessary to protect the places of worship which would entitle them to take all steps that are necessary in that behalf and the status quo order cannot preclude them from doing so if that is considered necessary for maintenance of public peace, tranquillity and public order. We do not think that the Government and police authorities would have any difficulty in understanding out previous order and to implement the same since we had in no uncertain terms permitted them to do every-thing that is necessary to protect the place of worship. No order of any subordinate court can be construed to run counter to this Court’s order. We, therefore, think that the petitioner’s appre-hension is misplaced and hence we dismiss the petition.
