In a significant observation on procedural propriety, the Supreme Court on Monday, July 6, declined to entertain an urgent listing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning allegedly objectionable and derogatory comments made against Prophet Muhammad by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Minority Morcha leader Nazia Elahi Khan.
A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sheel Nagu told the petitioner’s counsel that while the issue raised was “very grave,” the proper course was to first approach the police authorities. The Court expressed strong disapproval over the growing trend of filing petitions that bypass the due process of law.
The PIL, as read out in court, contended that Khan’s alleged remarks could potentially disturb communal harmony across the country. Justice Amanullah questioned the petitioner directly: “So you file a PIL? Why come here? Have you filed a complaint with the police?” He emphasised the need to “have faith in the system.”
The bench underscored that the Supreme Court functions as an apex monitoring body and cannot act as a substitute for lower authorities and police machinery. Justice Amanullah remarked that short-circuiting procedures sends a wrong message that lower functionaries need not act, ultimately weakening institutions.
He cautioned lawyers against sensationalising sensitive matters. “You are a counsel… You know the law. Don’t sensationalize these things. If one person has made a mistake, pin him down with the full force of the law,” the judge observed.
Justice Amanullah acknowledged the seriousness of the issue personally, stating he was “very sensitive to it,” but reiterated that established legal procedures must be followed. Only if the normal process fails to deliver appropriate action could the matter be brought before the Court.
The observations reflect the Supreme Court’s firm stance on maintaining judicial discipline and strengthening the foundational layers of the justice delivery system.