The Supreme Court imposed a Rs. 50,000 penalty on man looking for removal of 26 verses from The Quran. According to the submitted by the former chairman of Shia Waqf Board, Syed Rizvi, there are certain 26 verses in Quran which can be used as “justifications” by radical groups for attacks on “non-believers”. Thus, Rizvi sought that these verses ought to be removed from the Holy Book.

Background:

Earlier, a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in the apex court by Rizvi who sought that certain 26 verses in Quran be deemed unconstitutional & non-effective as these verses promote extremism and terrorism. Rizvi in his PIL claimed that these 26 verses are non-functional and can pose a threat to the unity, integrity and sovereignty of the nation. After the news of Rizvi’s PIL submission broke out, several Muslim clerics issued fatwas against him and protests were observed.

Details:

On Monday, April 12, a bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Hrishikesh Roy dismissed the PIL stating that the petition was ‘absolutely frivolous.

Moreover, the apex court’s bench also imposed Rs. 50,000 fines as costs on the petitioner for filing the PIL.

In the PIL, Rizvi, who’s the former Chairman of UP Central Waqf Board and the President of All India Shia Yateem Khana, claimed that there were a few verses in the Quran which promote violence and hatred.

The plea also went on to state that this matter affects the entire Muslim community and claimed that the Muslim community is subject to ridicule due to the meaning of the verses.

In the plea, Rizvi claimed that according to Article 29 and 30 of the Indian Constitution, the religious institutions have the freedom to teach religious teachings. However, they don’t have the liberty to teach anything illegal, and thus, it violates Indian Constitution.

Quotes:

In the Supreme Court, the bench dismissed the plea and said, “It is an absolutely frivolous petition”. The bench, including B.R. Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy at one point asked Senior advocate R.K. Raizada who appeared for Rizvi, “Do you seriously want to argue this petition? Are you going to press it?” and cautioned him against pressing the plea.

Tweet:

What does the law say?

According to the Indian Constitution, only a “law” can be challenged in a court and deemed as unconstitutional. According to Article 13 (3), a law is any ordinance, order, by-law, notification, rule, having in the territory the force of law.

The definition of law doesn’t cover any religious book or scripture like The Quran, The Gita, The Bible and the Guru Granth Sahib. Under the Article 13 of the Indian constitution, these scriptures can’t be challenged in the court of law as they are not “law”.

As far as the act of killing and terrorism is considered, the acts are already punishable under the constitution. Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code killing a human being is punishable.

There are several laws such as the POTA, UAPA, TADA that prohibit terrorism activities. Any human being, who indulges in such crimes cannot legally cite religious texts for their defence.