The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed as withdrawn a petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking similar rights for Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs to administer their religious places without State interference like Muslims, Parsis and Christians.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra refused to entertain the plea on grounds that it needed to raise more specific prayers to be considered by the court.

The Apex Court, however, did not dismiss other petitions tagged with Upadhyay’s PIL, which raised specific reliefs for a uniform endowment code.

The Bench granted time to the Central government in those matters, to file a response.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, urged the Apex Court to separate Upadhyay’s plea from the rest of the petitions.

He said the Government would file a response in other matters within a week.

The SG alleged that Advocate Upadhyay was doing this just for popularity.

Filed by Advocate Upadhyay, the petition sought similar rights to
Hindus, Jains, Buddhist and Sikhs to establish, manage and maintain the religious places.

The petition further sought rights to the above communities to own, acquire and administer movable and immovable properties of their religious places on the lines of Muslims and Christians.

It further stated that all laws made to administer properties of temples and gurdwaras were arbitrary and violated Article 14, 15, and 26.

As per the plea, if necessary, the court should direct the Central government or the Law Commission of India to draft a common charter for religious and charitable institutions and Uniform Code for Religious and Charitable Endowments.

A petition has been filed in the Delhi High Court regarding the Reserve Bank of India’s decision to ban banknotes in the denomination of Rs 2,000, as part of its clean note policy.

Filed by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, the plea contended that the RBI’s direction to the banks allowing the deposition of banknotes in the denomination of Rs 2000 without any demand slip and identity proof was arbitrary, irrational and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petitioner sought directions from the High Court to both RBI and the State Bank of India (SBI) that banknotes of Rs 2,000 be deposited in respective bank accounts instead of any other bank account, so that people with black money and disproportionate assets could be identified.

Apart from this, the petition sought directions to the Union of India to take appropriate steps against black money and disproportionate assets holders, in order to eliminate corruption and  benami transactions, apart from securing the fundamental rights of the citizens.

On May 19, the central bank had announced withdrawal of banknotes in the denomination of Rs 2,000, saying that though it will remain a legal tender, but people were advised to deposit or exchange the same at bank branches or designated RBI offices till September 30. 

As per the banker’s bank, individuals had the option to exchange Rs 2,000 banknotes for other denominations up to a limit of Rs 20,000 at a time at any bank, beginning May 23. 

However on May 20, a date after the announcement, the Central government clarified that there was no daily limit on the number of times to exchange notes. 

RBI Governor Shaktikanta Das on Monday said the banknote in the denomination of Rs 2,000 was introduced with the primary purpose of quickly replenishing the value of money that was being taken out of the system via demonetisation.

As that purpose has been fulfilled and there were enough notes of other denominations now, the decision was taken to withdraw these notes, he said.

Das said the printing of these notes had been stopped, adding that people should see this particular exercise as part of RBI’s currency management operation.

A petition has been filed in the Delhi High Court by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking directions to the Central government and States to restrict cash transactions of Rs 10,000 and above on goods, products and services, purchased through online shopping platforms like Amazon and Flipkart. 

Filed under Article 226, the petition further sought direction to the Union of India and state governments to restrict cash transactions on air ticket, rail ticket, electricity bill, LPG Bill, CNG Bill, Municipality Bill and other such bills of Rs 10,000 and above.

The plea claimed that the prayers sought in the PIL were a practical solution to control corruption, black money generation, money laundering, benami transactions and disproportionate assets.

It said corruption, black money generation and benami transactions had devastating effects on equality, justice, liberty, fraternity, dignity of individual, unity and national integration and fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21. 

The petition also sought directions to both the Centre and state governments to recall currency above Rs 100, link assets above Rs 50,000 with the Aadhaar card of an individual, confiscate 100 percent black money, benami property and disproportionate assets, besides sentencing looters to life imprisonment.

The plea also listed the benefits of taking such steps, stating that it would lead to adequate tax revenue for the Centre, States and Local Bodies, besides bringing transparency in the economy.

The steps would ensure a drop of around 10 percent in commodity prices, availability of loan at around five percent annual rate of interest and almost 10 percent reduction in construction costs, it added.

The petition claimed that this would help in controlling the terrorist and anti-national activities, weeding out of corruption and lead to cent percent subsidy benefits for the needy.

The steps would further ensure good infrastructure, social security and significant growth in agriculture industry and employment. It would shift the focus from tax manipulation to innovation, increasing the global competitiveness of Indian businesses.

The Central government on Monday told the Supreme Court that it was ‘cognisant’ of the gravity and seriousness of the issue related to forced religious conversions and said that it will take appropriate steps to curb the same.

The Union government said this in a counter-affidavit submitted before the Apex Court on a PIL filed by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking measures to control forced conversions.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the relief sought in the present petition would be taken up in all seriousness by the Centre and appropriate steps would also be taken to curb the conversion by force.

Upadhyay’s petition had sought directions to both the Union government as well as state governments, to take stringent steps against forceful religious conversion by intimidation, threats and deceivingly luring through gifts and monetary benefits. 

The petitioner further sought directions to the Law Commission to prepare a report as well as a Bill to control religious conversions.

On November 14, the Bench of Justice M.R.Shah and Justice Hima Kohli had observed that forceful religious conversion was a very serious issue threatening the security and freedom of the country and citizens. The Court said conversion impacts the freedom of conscience as well.

The Apex Court had said religion is the choice of a person and he has freedom of religion. The bench remarked how force and coercion is very dangerous when religious conversion is forced.

The Court said the issue is very serious and may ultimately affect freedom and security of the country and citizens, along with their freedom of conscience.

Following the observations, the Supreme Court directed the Central government to file a counter-affidavit on the steps taken by them to curb conversion by force.

Advocate Upadhyay had alleged in his plea that the government has failed to control the menace of religious conversion using intimidation, threats and luring through gifts and monetary benefits, black magic and superstition.

The plea stated that forced religious conversion by “the carrot and the stick” and “by hook or crook” not only offends Articles 14, 15, 21, 25 of the Constitution, but is also against the principles of secularism, which is an integral part of the basic structure of Constitution.

Citing examples, the petitioner said religious conversion by intimidating, threatening and deceivingly luring through gifts and monetary benefits is an offence in only a few places. Similarly, religious conversion by using black magic and superstition is an offence in Gurugram but not in adjoining West Delhi.

It not only violated Article 14, but was also contrary to the principles of secularism and rule of law, which were the basic structure of the Constitution, the plea said.

Earlier, in one of the hearings, the Bench had inquired about the material basis for raising the issue. “Where are the statistics? Who’s being converted? Anybody who’s being converted, comes forward to complain?”

Upadhyay responded that data was available on social media to substantiate the claim of forced religious conversions taking place throughout the country.

“Social media is not data. We have instances of photographs being morphed. Some incidents being shown that this is something which has happened, but it turns out that happened somewhere in some other country 20 years ago and that photograph is shown as happening yesterday or today,” said the Bench expressing its dissatisfaction.

The Bench further remarked that conversion is a constitutional right and not prohibited in the country.

“It is the right of an individual to profess any religion, religion of his birth or religion that he chooses to profess. That’s the freedom that our Constitution grants,” said the Bench emphasizing that there is no such thing as “fraud” in religion and that if a person is coerced into converting, it is that person’s prerogative.

Further, the plea stated that if such conversions were not checked, Hindus would soon become a minority in India. Thus, the Centre was obligated to enact a countrywide law for the same, it was contended.

The Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn a petition on Friday, which sought framing of stringent rules and guidelines for tackling the population explosion in the country, besides ascertaining the feasibility of making the two-child norm mandatory for government jobs, aids, subsidies as well as right to vote, right to contest and right to free shelter.

The Bench of Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka dismissed the Intervening Application filed in the SLP (C) No 27597/2019 on the grounds that the prayers sought in the application were outside the purview of the court and best left for the government to consider.

Stating that it was essentially the task of the government, Justice Kaul asked the petitioner as to how the Court could enact legislation on the matter.

Petitioner-in-Person Ashwini Upadhyay contended that they were seeking a report to be made on the subject by the Law Commission.

To this, the Bench remarked that since it was a social issue, the Law Commission could not do anything in it. 

Justice Oka further flayed the petitioner for including prayers such as declaring Sunday as National Population Day in the petition and said this was not the Law Commission’s task to get into such matters.

Upadhyay then pointed out the gravity of the matter, claiming that due to the huge rate of population, the country was facing various perils.

Referring to the data submitted on the subject, Justice Kaul said that he was aware of the material, which suggested that the country’s population was on the declining trend, as compared to other countries.

It further rebuked the petitioner, saying that there should be some reasonability in understanding the job of this Court.
Alleging that the petition was filed only to gain publicity, the Apex Court noted that it was not the job of this Court to give publicity to the petitioner.   

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India, submitted that the Central Government was doing everything within its capabilities to control the rise in population. 

By way of the IA, the petitioner sought directions to the Centre as well as States to frame stringent and effective guidelines for population control, in order to secure the fundamental rights, including the right to clean air, clean water, food, health, peaceful sleep, shelter, livelihood, education and dignity.

The petition further sought direction to both the Central and State governments to ascertain the feasibility of making the two-child norm as a mandatory criterion for government jobs, aids, subsidies as well as right to vote, right to contest and right to free shelter;

It also urged the Supreme Court to direct the Union government, as well as State governments, to declare the First Sunday of every month as ‘Population Control Day'(on the lines of Polio Day), besides  providing condoms, vaccines and contraceptive pills to people belonging to EWS and BPL categories. 

It also sought direction to the Law Commission to examine the population control laws and policies of the developed countries and prepare a comprehensive Report over the same within three months.

(Case title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Ministry of Health & Family Welfare)

The Supreme Court on Monday gave the Central government time till December 12 to file reply on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

Appearing for the Union of India, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended before the Apex Court that the Government needed more time to have detailed consultation with higher echelons of the government regarding the matter.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala then listed the matter for hearing in the first week of January next year, before a three-Judge Bench.

BJP leader and former MP Dr Subramanian Swamy told the bench that he was not seeking to set aside the Act through his petition, but only wanted addition of two more temples at Kashi and Mathura and said that the Act can then remain as it is.

The pleas challenged the Places of Worship Act on the grounds that it took away the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs to restore their places of worship and pilgrimages, which were destroyed by the invaders.

Petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court by daughter of the Kashi Royal Family Maharaja Kumari Krishna Priya, former Member of Parliament Chintamani Malviya, Advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, retired Army officer Anil Kabotra, Advocate Chandra Shekhar, Varanasi resident Rudra Vikram Singh, religious leader Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati, Mathura resident Devkinandan Thakur Ji and a religious guru, among others, against the 1991 Act.

Earlier on March 12 this year, the Apex Court had issued notice to the Centre on two separate petitions challenging the Act.

In a petition that challenges the Muslim personal law practised such as polygamy and Bilal halala, a Constitution bench comprising of five-judges have impleaded the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the National Commission of Women (NCW) and the National Commission of Minorities as parties in a batch of petitions.

The bench of Justice Indira Banerjee from the Supreme Court has issued notices to the three statutory bodies.

The decision on the same was taken when an arraignment was sought in the case by the senior advocate Shyam Diwan, for petitioner Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

A notice has also been issued in a separate petition which said that  the personal law practices violated Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code which makes marrying again during a lifetime of spouse is  punishable offence  with imprisonment upto seven years and fine. The court has set to list the matter after the Dussehra holidays.

Mr. Upadhyay arguments put forward by Updhyayay are that the   polygamy and nikah halala (bar against remarriage with divorced husband without an intervening marriage with another man) are unconstitutional.

He said that section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, as it does not recognise and validate polygamy and nikah halala.

Mr. Upadhyay further said that to secure basic rights ,public order, a “ban on polygamy and nikah halala has been the need of the hour.

An application has been filed by the All India Muslim Personal Law contending that this was a “cultural issue” and inextricably interwoven with the religion of Islam.

It also argued that the personal law does not fall within the definition of ‘laws’ under Article 13 of the Constitution.

He further added that the validity of a personal law cannot be challenged on the basis of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

The Muslim board firmly believes that the petitions is a push for a judicial pronouncement to bring the Uniform Civil Code.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay has written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the occasion of World Health Day about the perils of overpopulation on the national economy and its ramifications.

The letter stated that the impact that repeated child bearing has on a woman are seldom highlighted outside the niche areas. The incidence of grand multiparity, which is defined as more than 4 viable births, in developing countries like India is 20% while it is only 2% in developed countries. 

Advocate Upadhyay said that the ill-effects of repeated pregnancies both on the women and the newborns are devastating. In India, malnutrition and anaemia are rampant in expecting mothers.This becomes worse with repeated pregnancies jeopardizing their health and leading to further adverse pregnancy outcomes.There is also increased risk of abortions in such mothers. They become more prone to infections with repeated pregnancies. The risk of complications during delivery such as cord prolapse, post-dated pregnancy, labour induction, instrumental deliveries, assisted vaginal deliveries and caesarean sections are also higher.  

In the letter, it is submitted that the grand multiparity is itself a risk factor both for antepartum haemorrhage that is bleeding before the onset of labour and postpartum haemorrhage, which is increased bleeding after the child birth. It is seen that such women also suffer from more genital tract injuries including rupture of uterus sometimes leading to hysterectomy (surgical removal of the womb). Overall it results in mothers having longer stay in the hospital, more blood transfusions, more frequent admissions to Intensive care units (ICU) and even increased deaths. 

Also Read: SC Women Lawyers Association moves Supreme Court seeking fair representation of women among High Court judges

It is further submitted that the harmful effects of multiple pregnancies are seen not only in mothers but also in babies who are born to such mothers. These babies may be premature, or of low birth weight (<2.5 kg), and may have poor outcomes as indicated by low APGAR score. 

Sometimes they have a large fetal size that leads to increased birth trauma. There is also an increased incidence of congenital anomalies in such babies. More newborns need admissions to ICU arising due to fetal distress, abnormal CTG, or sometimes even stillbirths and increased perinatal mortality, alleged the letter. 

“The deleterious effects of multiple pregnancies are not only limited to the above said medical conditions. These women spend the most productive and active years of their lives performing the task of childbearing and breastfeeding. With fewer children, they can pursue their hobbies, their dreams and may be able to move towards a better quality of life. A decreased pregnancy load would not only help them achieve their full potential but can also lead to upliftment of their families,”

-the letter reads. 

Also Read: Covid spike: Allahabad HC issues SOP for hearings from April 7 to 9

The letter pointed out that It is indeed heartening that India’s population growth has come down. However, a strong and effective population control law on the lines of China is the need of the hour. 

“More emphasis needs to be laid on women’s education and health. They are the foundation for our future generations. If they are physically and mentally fit, confident and independent, they can bring a paradigm change in the society. It is often said that ‘a girl with dreams becomes a woman with vision,” the letter highlights.

The Supreme Court on Monday has refused to entertain a batch of pleas seeking investigation by CBI, ED and SFIO or SIT consisting of CBI, ED, SFIO, EOW and Crime Branch to investigate money laundering, benami transactions, black money etc into the alleged biggest franchisee scam in India. 

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian said we are not on merits. “We will not adjudicate this. Go to the jurisdictional high court,” the Court said. 

In the hearing today, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay said, “Your lordship had issued notice earlier because the cheaters are from throughout country.”

The CJI replied, “You may be right but we are not going to adjudicate on that.”

Also Read: Supreme Court refuses pleas seeking probe into franchisee scam by CBI, ED

However, the Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw with the liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court. 

The Court was hearing the three petitions filed by AOR Ashwini Kumar Dubey. The three petitions were filed against the owners, directors, partners and other beneficiaries of DBM Retails Pvt Ltd., Westland Trade Private Limited and White Blue Retails Pvt Ltd. 

The petitioners are basically investors of these private limited companies seeking appointment of a receiver or a forensic auditor and directions for recovery of petitioners’ hard-earned money. 

The petitioners had submitted that the cause of action had arisen when they came to know that all these private limited companies are fake, bogus and ghost company involved in the biggest franchisee scam in India committed by an organized international racket of money launderer, cheaters and fraudsters.

The petitioner had further alleged that in collusion with ROC and Bank staff, directors partners and employees made false documents and electronic records with intent to cause injury to petitioners and commit fraud. They dishonestly and fraudulently made, signed and executed documents and made electronic records with intention of making petitioners believe that contracts were genuine and executable.

Also Read: Farm laws: Supreme Court grants liberty to petitioners to withdraw plea for amendments

Referring to KV Rajendran v CBI case, the petitioners had submitted that in rare and exceptional cases can be transferred from state police to CBI and in the present case, ROC and bank employees are involved in this gigantic scam and are likely to influence the investigation. Hence, in order to do justice and instill confidence in minds of victims and the public, the petitioner had urged the Court to not allow the police to continue the investigation and the same be transferred to CBI, ED, and SFIO.