Ashwini Upadhyay’s PIL seeking similar rights for Hindus, others to administer their religious places like Muslims, SC refused to entertain

On October 18, 2023, the Supreme Court (SC) of India refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to declare that Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs have similar rights to manage, establish, and maintain their religious places without the interference of the state like Muslim, Parsis, and Christians. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay filed the PIL. The matter was heard yesterday (October 18) by a three-judge bench of the SC comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice JB Pardiwala. A SC bench of judges said the matter lay within the legislative's purview, and the court would not be interested in getting involved. The SC said “What is this prayer? You can’t say direct all to be treated equally- that is already provided for under Article 14. Mr. Updadhyay, filed 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. File a petition that has some substance. This is all publicity-oriented litigation. This petition is not maintainable.”

The PIL filed by Ashwini Upadhyay also illustrated that all laws related to administering properties of gurudwaras and temples were arbitrary and violated Articles 14, 15, and 26 of the Indian Constitution. It further mentioned that the court should direct the Centre or the Law Commission of India to draft a common charter for charitable and religious institutions and a Uniform code for religious and charitable endowments. While dismissing the petition, the CJI stated that Upadhyaya could appeal to the Parliament for the relief. In this context, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta remarked, “He can make a representation. One of the prayers is to direct the government for some endowment or something…Mr. Upadhyay you can inform the media that you’re intervening in the batch.”

After hearing the contentions, the SC bench disinclined to entertain the plea and remarked, “This petition is not maintainable…The Constitution gives you these rights under Articles 25 and 26. This is a matter of governmental policy. We are not going to direct the government to pass laws on religious places. We are not entering the legislative domain. Such petitions cause a problem. 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 impress…this is the Supreme Court.” Further, the petition was withdrawn by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.