Supreme Court Dismisses Waseem Rizvi’s Plea Seeking Removal Of 26 Verses From Quran Impose a Fine Of Rs.50,000/-
(Judicial Quest News Network)
The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by former Up Shia Waqf Board Chairman Waseem Rizvi seeking to remove 26 verses from Quran that he argued are preaching violence against non-believers.
A Bench headed by RF Nariman dismissed the writ petition observing, “This is an absolutely frivolous writ petition”
Th Court has also imposed Rs. 50,000/- as cosr on the petitioner for filing the petition
Senior Advocate RK Raizada, appearing for Rizvi, told the court that his client was confining the prayer to the regulation of Madrassa education.
He also said that the literal interpretation of certain verses preached violence against non-believers, and therefore teaching them can lead to indoctrination o children.
In his plea Waseem Rizvi had contended that our country has been a victim of terrorism for the last over seven decades.
Earlier in March, an FIR was registered against Waseem Rizvi for allegedly hurting the sentiments of Muslims with hs petition in the Supreme Court seeking removal of some verses of Quran which he claimed promoted terrorism.
In his plea Waseem stated that due to the extreme interpretation of verses of Quran, the religion is drifting away from its basic tenets with militancy, fundamentalism, extremism and terrorism.
Waseem Rizvi had referred to following verses to be removed from Quran
Verse 9 Surah 5; Verse 9 Surah 28; Verse 4Surah 101;Verse 9 Surah 123; Verse 4 Surah 56; Verse 9 Surah 23; Verse 9 Surah 37; Verse 5 Surah57;Verse 33 Surah 61; Verse 21 Surah 98; Verse 32 Surah 22; Verse 48 Surah 20;Verse 8 Surah 69;Verse 66 Surah9; Verse 41 Surah 27; verse 41 Surah28; Verse 9 Surah111;Verse 9 Surah 58;Verse 8 Surah 65; verse 5 Surah 51; Verse 9 Surah 29; Verse 5 Surah 14; Verse 4 Surah 89;Verse 9 Surah 14 Verse 3 Surah 151; Verse 5 Surah 14; Verse 4 Surah 89; Verse 9 Surah 14; Verse 4 Surah 151;Verse 2 Surah 191
Rizvi in his plea had submitted that on account of thiese verses contained in Holy Quran,innocent Muslim studentsstudying in the institutions providing elemenryeducation in madrassas get radicalised at a very tender age which is not only against the peace and harmony of the country but also against unity,integirity and soveregnity of the country. Not only this Muslim Imams deliver sermons not only this Muslim Imams delivers sermons after prayers particularly on Friday on the basis of these verses and radicalise communalism.
Who are by and large uneducated orthodox people.
Chandmal Chopra Case
A petition had been filed in 1987 in Kolkata High Court by Chandramaal Chopra and Sethlal Singh against the State of West Bengal, respondent calling Upon the latter to show cause why a writ petition of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondentto declare that each copy of the Quran’
t was contended that the publication of the Koran containing the aforesaid offending portions was punishable under Section 153A and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code and as such came within the mischief of Section 95 of the Cr. P. C., 1973. As a public authority the respondent had a duty to invoke the said Section 95 of the Cr. P. C. and to forfeit all copies of the Koran and seize the same wherever found in India.
Calcutta High Court had dismissed the plea and held that we hold that the Courts cannot sit in judgment over the Koran or the contents thereof in any legal proceedings. Such adjudication of the religion itself is not permissible. Similarly the Courts cannot and will not adjudicate on theories of philosophy or of science or scientific principles.
It was also held that there has been no interference in Quran neither in India nor in Any Country up till now
Even an attempt to consider the Koran in the context of Section 95 of the Cr. P. C., 1973 would be infructuous at the inception inasmuch as the preamble of our Constitution and Article 25 thereof throw a protective shield over matters of religion including the holy religious books and scriptures.
Any attempt to impugn Koran in the manner as has been sought to be done would infringe the right to freedom of religion including the right to profess, practise and propagate religion.
Even otherwise, it appears to us that the Koran apart from being a holy religious book is also an important historical document and the distribution and propagation thereof cannot be suppressed under Section 95, of the Cr. P. C. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in M/s. Varsha Publications Pvt. Ltd. 1983 Cri LJ 1446 (supra). We also hold that the writ petition is not maintainable otherwise inasmuch as under Section 95 it is for the State Government to form its opinion before taking any action under the said section and this Court cannot project its own opinion and call upon the State Government to act thereon. We also feel that the mischief sought to be curbed under Sections 153A and 295A of the Penal Code and Section 95 of the Cr. P. C., 1973 would be aggravated and not controlled by pursuing the instant proceedings.
