Petitioners - Public Citizen: Fill & Download for Free

Allahabad High court which is the highest judicial body of Uttar Pradesh has ordered no Azaan on the loudspeaker, only the human voice is allowed. [1]It is a wholly sensible judgement as Azaan is essential not loudspeakers.No religious place can use loudspeakers individually without taking the license and the consent of local police, and Nobody can use loudspeakers from 10 PM to 6 AM.[2]Sleep is a primary right of every citizen of India. The sound can not cross the 75-decibel mark, but they use 4 amplifiers in which every amplifier amplifies the sound to 125 decibels.[3]The Azaan from mosques would not be a problem if loudspeakers were not used. It is the use of loudspeakers that disturbs people.It all started from the Gahzipur district of UP. The administration put restrictions on Azaan in mosques during the lockdown as it was against the guidelines.Followingly, the police administration issued a warning that violators would be booked under the NSA.A lot of MP's filed petition against the administrator stating Azaan is an integral part of Islam, and it would be a violation of Article 25(1).Azaan means that ALLAH is Most Great, and there is no god except ALLAH.But, Every citizen has equal rights, and no citizen can claim that he or his religion is only authentic, and the rest are deceptions, and it is constitutionally illegal as India is a secular country. [4]The high court admitted that Azzan may be an integral part of Islam, but loudspeakers could not be.As under Article 19(1) in the constitution of India 1949, every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression. [5]But, Article 25(1) subjects to public order, morality and health and the other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. [6]Not only this, even the Supreme court in 2000 had passed a judgement in Church of God(Full Gospel) in India vs K.K.R Majestic and observed that "no religion or religious sect can claim that the use of loudspeaker or similar instrument for prayers is an essential part of the religion which is protected under Article 25".[7]Even Prophet Mohamad had never said to pray on loudspeakers as it leads to Noise Pollution. No petitioner was able to prove that Azaan can not be offered without loudspeakers.[8]Every citizen should know his rights and practice it diligently. People just need awareness, do not expect everything from the government.Footnotes[1] Allahabad High court News: Allahabad HC allows 'azan' in mosques by individuals without loudspeaker | Allahabad News - Times of India[2] Use of loudspeaker or public address system prohibited from 10 pm to 6 am | SCC Blog[3] "Azan Essential, Loudspeakers Not", Allahabad High Court Tells UP Mosques[4] Azaan: The Muslim call to prayer[5] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/[6] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/631708/[7] Church Of God (Full Gospel) In. vs K.K.R.Majestic Colony Welfare.[8] 'Prophet Never Said So': Allahabad HC's No to Azaan on Loudspeakers, Only Human Voice Allowed

I support CAA and oppose all acts of vandalism done under the garb of protests damaging public property.What bugs me isThe failure of the administration in anticipating such large scale protests and their failure to take pre-emptive steps. The real administrative action here should have been sparing the misguided youth and making the leadership regret their decision to incite public feelings.The Judiciary not hearing the pleas, a number of them spurious, immediately/continuously and if found frivolous then order arrest of the petitioners for wasting public time and expenses. Punish the administration if found using excessive and unwarranted force.Failure of Government in conveying the real meaning and import of CAA which does not affect the citizens of India (of any religion) at all.

If Supreme Court can lift a ban on entry of women into the Lord Ayyappa temple in Sabarimala, then why Kerala High Court dismisses plea for allowing Muslim women in mosques? Isn't this discrimination violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution?Ans: Simple… The petitioners have no locus standi in the case.The concept of PIL or Public Interest Litigation is simple. You can file a PIL for benefit of larger social good in which you too must be a person aggrieved out of it or beneficiary if otherwise.In simple words, I can file a PIL, only if I believe, the case is to help a much larger society or social cause in which I will too be included. I cannot file a case which has nothing to do with me in a remote way.This particular case was filed by one Swamy Dethathreya Sai Swaroop Nath who claims to be President of State unit of Akhila Bharatha Hindu Maha Sabha. The prayer was“Muslim Women were discriminated against by not allowing them to enter and pray in mosques in the main prayer hall of the mosque which must be removed as it violates Article 21 and 14 of Indian Constitution.”The court has asked him to explain his Locus standi in the case.In what capacity is he filing this case? Does he belong to the Muslim community? Is he an affected woman? Is anyone related to him directly being affected? In what way does he represent a Muslim Woman?The following is the copy of the verdict.The key part of why this case was dismissed becausePetitioners had no right to claim on behalf of Muslim Women. They weren’t even from that community to claim soThe petitioners didn’t file any record of evidence that women being denied into the masjid. Mere hearsay won’t be enough. There should be sufficient proof and specific details as such. They should have presented the details of specific Masjid where women being denied and sufficient documents that suggest that. Either in form of a circular of Masjid or a photo of a rule pasted outside or in form of any written code or statute book etc. Without any evidence, how can a court pass a verdict?The petitioners seem to file this case as a matter of knee-jerk reaction to counter and create a narrative among hardcore Hindutva members. It has nothing to do with the actual welfare of the community mentioned in the petition and it's more likely meant for media attention and social media discussion. Courts are not meant for such purposes.These are three major reasons why the petition was rejected.Kerala HC Dismisses Akhila Bharat Hindu Mahasabha’s Plea For Muslim Women’s Entry To Mosques [Read Judgment] | Live LawIts not comparable to Sabarimala case asIt was filed by 6 Hindu ladies namely Bhakti Pasrija Sethi (who was the general secretary of Indian Young Lawyers Association in 2006 at the time of case filing), Prerna Kumari, Alka Sharma, Sudha Pal, Laxmi Shastri. All these ladies were practicing Hindus and they have the right to seek justice related to their own religion.They filed the case, as they themselves are part of the aggrieved community (ie Ladies). If Bhakti Pasrija or Lakshmi Shastri want to visit Sabarimala, they can’t due to the existence of the previous law. So they proved, they themselves have a reason to file a case and a verdict in their favor could make them a direct beneficiary. So they have a clear LOCUS STANDI.There is no concept of territorial jurisdiction for Hindu community. Any Hindu can question unjust laws and system prevailing in any part of India. I as a Malayalee can question an unjust law if prevailing in Kashi Vishwanath temple or Badrinath temple. The concept of devotion cannot be restricted exclusively to people of one region. UP state citizens cannot claim as Kashi Temple is in UP, they are the only true devotees. There is no concept of GUEST DEVOTEEs in Hinduism. Same way, Malayalees cannot claim, they only represent the sentiments of Devotees of Sabarimala. Anyone can be a devotee from any part of India or the world and if they face injustice, they can approach the court. This forms clear reason for PIL.The case was filed in Supreme court as a matter of appeal against another verdict of Kerala High court. The basic petition assumes a character of the appellate petition. Supreme court exists for filing and listening to appeals.Exclusive: Sabarimala petitioners, Bhakti Pasrija Sethi, Prerna Kumari clear the airSo in Sabarimala case, the petitioners had a clear locus standing, which unfortunately the petitioners in this said case do not have.However, this is not a closed chapter. The actual affected party are all set to file a case in the Supreme court.Kerala Muslim women forum to move SC seeking right to pray in mosquesThey are going to make a petition not just seeking an entry into mosques but also filing a petition seeking to appoint women as Imams of the mosque. This is announced by NISA President- VP Zuhra as you can see in the above video clip.After Sabarimala verdict, Muslim women are all set to approach SC demanding entry to mosques, priesthood - FirstpostSee, when this case comes up, there is a clear locus standi in the case. So will be entertained and in all probability, Supreme court will make another landmark verdict as Sabarimala case is a clear precedent for that.