The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday briefly heard a PIL filed by the Hindu Front for Justice, which sought sweeping directions to the Centre and the State to prevent what the petitioners described as frequent “denigration” of Hindu deities and scriptures. The courtroom atmosphere was calm but mildly restless as the Bench tried to understand what exactly the petitioners wanted from the judiciary.
Background
The petitioners had approached the court with an unusually broad set of prayers-ranging from asking the government to take “forceful steps” against acts allegedly insulting Hindu deities to even reviewing the effectiveness of penal provisions dealing with religious insults. Their affidavit listed several incidents, some already the subject of separate cases pending in different courts.
One paragraph in the petition stood out. It described how the petitioners have “since long” felt distressed about the “dishonouring and disfigurement” of Hindu deities and the burning of sacred books like the Ramcharitmanas and Bhagavad Gita. They argued that such acts violate the fundamental right to life and religious freedom.
But as the hearing unfolded, the Bench seemed unconvinced that a PIL could be used to demand such vast and, frankly, unspecific directions. There was no single incident, no identifiable party, and no limited issue for adjudication.
Court’s Observations
The Bench-Justices Rajan Roy and Indrajeet Shukla-asked the petitioners a simple but pointed question: Are there no existing criminal laws to deal with the situations you’re describing?
The petitioners' counsel admitted that laws do exist-sections dealing with religious insults, promoting enmity, and disturbing public order-but argued that they were “ineffective”.
The judges were not persuaded. “The bench observed, ‘Implementation of law is squarely within the domain of the executive. The court cannot issue a general mandamus of this nature,’” signalling that the judiciary would not step into territory constitutionally reserved for the legislature and the government.
They also underlined that if the petitioners wanted amendments to the law or new legal frameworks, the courtroom was not the venue. “For reliefs of this nature, your remedy lies with the competent ministry,” the Bench said in a tone that was firm but not dismissive.
Another observation came when the judges noted that many of the incidents cited were already the subject of separate litigations. A PIL could not be turned into a super-petition to cover everything. As one lawyer remarked outside the courtroom, “It’s like they wanted one petition to solve all religious tensions at once.”
Decision
In the end, the Bench declined to issue any of the sweeping directions sought. The order recorded that the prayers amounted to a request for a “general mandamus”, which courts do not grant. Instead, the court disposed of the petition while granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Union or State ministries for any policy-level concerns.
With that, the matter ended-not with any new guidelines on religious protections, but with a reminder of the constitutional boundaries between courts, the executive, and lawmakers. The order concluded simply: the grievances “may be considered by them as per law,” and the petition was dismissed accordingly.
Case Title: Hindu Front for Justice Through National Convenor vs. Union of India & Others
Case No.: PIL No. 1230 of 2025
Case Type: Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Decision Date: 4 December 2025