Banke Bihari Temple: Supreme Court stays the order of Allahabad High Court, raised questions on unbearable language

Years

A bench of Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi visited a PIL on a PIL by the single bench of the High Court, on July 21 and August 6, which challenged the Uttar Pradesh Shri Banke Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 and banned the comments made in them.

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed displeasure over the orders passed by the Allahabad High Court on a PIL at the historic Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan and questioned the use of uncomfortable language against the Uttar Pradesh government. A bench of Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi visited a PIL on a PIL by the single bench of the High Court, on July 21 and August 6, which challenged the Uttar Pradesh Shri Banke Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 and banned the comments made in them. Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj, appearing by the Uttar Pradesh government, told the bench that the High Court took parallel action on the issue and made some unfair comments in the order.

Also read this: After CJI’s intervention, SC has to withdraw its own order, know what is the matter

The bench said what kind of unreasonable language is the High Court using? As if the state has committed some sin by passing an ordinance. What is all this? Was the High Court not told that the Supreme Court is considering the matter? Justice Kant further said that petitions challenging the constitutional validity of a law were always listed before the bench, but the single judge passed the order in the current case. The bench ordered a ban on the comments made in the order of July 21, in which the comments against the state were appointed as an judiciary in addition to the August 6 order.

Also read this: Supreme Court started a fresh hearing in Bhushan Power and Steel case

The apex court also stayed further proceedings in the High Court on the petition challenging the ordinance. He asked the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to consider listing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the ordinance with other petitions before a bench.

Other news

Source link

Leave a Comment