'Clear Discrimination Based On Religion': Allahabad HC Summons Judicial Officer For Observations On Muslim Lawyers

“It can be clearly inferred that the trial court had passed the order which is directly contrary to the terms of Article 15(1) as violating a specific constitutional prohibition. The learned Judge of the trial court has clearly discriminated one community only on the basis of religion,” a bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed.

The remarks in question were made during the trial against two Muslim clerics (Mohammad Umar Gautam and Mufti Qazi Jahangir Alam Qasmi) in a case related to an alleged mass conversion racket.

Essentially, the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Special Judge NIA/ATS, Lucknow) Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi had refused to accept the request of certain Muslim lawyers' who sought a brief adjournment to enable them to attend Friday prayers. In fact, in his order, passed on January 19, 2024, the trial judge stated that an amici curiae would represent the accused whenever such Muslim lawyers (appearing for the accused) would attend Friday prayers.

Last month, the single judge had stayed the orders passed by the trial court while hearing a petition filed by one of the accused.

Subsequently, though the trial court permitted Muslim lawyers to represent the accused, it deferred a decision on the application for electronic evidence, even when the applicant-accused had filed a plea under Section 207 CrPC demanding a copy of the electronic evidence available against him.

Noting that the trial court had proceeded in a very arbitrary manner without considering the gravity of HC's stay order, the Court said that unless and until the copy of the electronic evidence demanded by the applicant is provided, the trial court ought not to have proceeded with the trial of the case.

Further, Justice Ahmed strongly objected to the trial court's observations made against a particular community as it remarked thus:

“the learned trial court in its order dated 19.01.2024 has also given its finding regarding the non presence of counsel for the applicant during the trial as they belong to certain religion and they often leave the court to offer prayers at the place of worship and in pursuance of that he has appointed the amicus curie to represent the applicant during the course of the trial against the wishes of the applicant and other co-accused persons in the present case, who have appointed counsels of their choice and their religion on their behalf to represent themselves in the trial court, this shows clear discrimination on the part of the trial court on the basis of religion, which is clear violation of Fundamental Right enshrined in Article 15 of the Constitution of India,” (emphasis supplied).

Further, stressing that a judicial service is not an ordinary government service and that a Judge holds an office of public trust, the Court said that A Judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion.

“The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon the Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive and the rule of law to survive, justice system and the judicial process have to be strong and every Judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty.' There can be no manner of doubt that a Judge must decide the case only on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If a Judge decides a case for any extraneous reasons then he is not performing his duty in accordance with law,” the Court added.

Consequently, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Court said that its earlier stay order would continue to operate and that now, even the trial against the accused would be stayed.

Importantly, the Court summoned the Judicial officer while taking exception to his 'judicial misconduct,' as the single judge stressed that Judges must be accountable to legal and ethical standards. The Court further directed him to file a personal affidavit.

Pursuant to the High Court's order, the Judicial Officer in question appeared before the High Court on April 15, where he tendered an unconditional apology while stating that the impugned orders were passed under a misconception, which shall be rectified.

He added that he would be cautious in future while perusing the orders passed by the Court. He, however, sought time to file his personal affidavit

Granting him two days' further time to the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Additional District & Sessions Judge-IIIrd/ Special Judge NIA/ATS, Lucknow to file the personal affidavit, the Court posted the matter for further hearing on April 18.