REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Rev. Suresh Carleton Appellant

V/S

STATE OF M. P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

(2.) Learned Advocate General raised objection regarding maintainability of the petitions on twin grounds. Firstly, the relief claimed in the petitions is vague and Clause 7(2) of prayer clause does not specify as to which provisions of Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 2021') are unconstitutional. In absence of any specific relief being prayed for, the whole Act cannot be declared as ultra vires. Moreso, when petitioners are unable to show that whole Act is brought into force by the State without their being any legislative competence for the same. Secondly, the impugned Act of 2021 is almost similar to Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 (hereinafter referred as "1968 Adhiniyam"). The constitutionality of 1968 Adhiniyam was called in question before this Court and ultimately matter travelled to Apex Court. The said case was decided by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in REV - Stainislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 1977 (1) SCC 677. The constitutionality of the 1968 Adhiniyam was upheld by the Supreme Court. The impugned Act of 2021 is almost similar and enacted by changing the 'flavour' (XXX) of 1968 Adhiniyam and hence petition is not maintainable.

(3.) Faced with this, Mr. Manoj Sharma, learned Senior Advocate submits that relief claims in W.P.No.6263/2021 is very specific which reads as under :-

Click here to view full judgment.

REV. SURESH CARLETON Vs. STATE OF M. P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address