"Cannot Pursue Petitions To Show To Press": Supreme Court Dismisses Ashwini Upadhyay's PIL Seeking Uniform Endowment Code

The Supreme Court on Wednesday(October 18) refused to entertain a PIL filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to declare that Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs have similar rights to administer their religious places without State interference like Muslims, Parsis and Christians. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra remarked that the petition needed to raise more specific prayers to be considered by the court.

However, it may be noted that the other petitions, tagged with Upadhyay's PIL, which raised specific reliefs for a uniform endowment code were not dismissed by the bench. In those matters, the bench gave time to the Union to file a response. 

At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought for the bench to separate Upadhyay's plea from the rest of the petitions, in which he stated the State would file a response within a week. He added– "Mr Upadhyay is doing this just for popularity."

It may be noted that the PIL filed by Upadhyay had prayed the court to declare that Hindus, Jains, Buddhist and Sikhs have similar rights to establish, manage and maintain the religious places and to own, acquire and administer movable and immovable properties of their religious places just like Muslims and Christians. It further stated that all laws made to administer properties of temples and gurdwaras were arbitrary and violate Article 14, 15, and 26. The petition stated that if necessary, the court should direct the Centre or the Law commission of India to draft a common charter for religious and charitable institutions and Uniform Code for Religious and Charitable Endowments.

Taking into account the nature of the relief sought by the PIL, the CJI stated–

"What is this prayer? You can't say direct all to be treated equally–that is already provided for under Article 14. Mr Upadhyay, file 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. See these prayers- All laws administering Gurudwaras are arbitrary? All laws?"

Referring to his petition as a "publicity oriented petition", the CJI made his intention of dismissing it clear and stated that Upadhyay could appeal to the parliament for the reliefs.

Adding to this, the SG remarked–

"He can make a representation. One of the prayers is direct the government for some endowment or something...Mr Upadhyay you can inform media that you're intervening in the batch."

At this juncture, the CJI remarked that other petitions in the batch raised specific reliefs and challenges. These other petitions include challenges to appointment of Archakas (poojari/priest) in some Temples in the State of Tamil Nadu, the shutting down of some temples in Karnataka as the State was in-charge of running the temples and there were serious cases of mismanagement, and more.

Disinclined to entertain Upadhyay's plea, the CJI remarked–

"This petition is not maintainable...The constitution gives you these rights under Articles 25, 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 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 in press...this is the Supreme Court."

Upadhayay then withdrew his petition. 

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union Of India And Ors. W.P.(C) No. 796/2021 PIL-W