Meghalaya High Court sets aside earlier judgment for calling to declare India a Hindu country

SHILLONG, May 24: The Meghalaya High Court on Friday set aside its earlier ruling which stated that India should have declared itself a Hindu country.

On Friday, a division bench of the High Court while setting aside the earlier judgment said that that it is legally flawed and is inconsistent with the constitutional principles, the observations made and directions passed therein are totally superfluous, therefore, is set aside in its entirety, as such shall be non est.

On December 10, 2018, a single bench of the Meghalaya High Court stated, “Pakistan declared themselves as an Islamic country and India since was divided on the basis of religion should have also been declared as a Hindu country but it remained as a secular country”.

The single bench ruling was on a petition filed by one Amon Rana, who had applied for recruitment in the Armed forces and needed a domicile certificate, which was denied to him.

It may be mentioned that the single bench judgment has made an appeal to the Government of India for taking necessary steps to bring a law to safeguard the interest of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis, Khasis and Garos who have already come to India and who are yet to come from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan as well as persons of Indian origin who are residing abroad after taking historical background.

During the proceedings the Advocate General A Kumar contended that the direction for taking necessary steps to bring a law to safeguard the interest of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis, Khasis and Garos and certain other observations made in the judgment are not consistent with the preamble and other provisions of the Constitution.

The division bench of the High Court in its ruling stated that in the judgment impugned while tracing the history as was within knowledge certain observations have been made which according to Advocate General are offending the preamble of the Constitution.

The High Court also observed that there was no requirement to go into superfluous questions and secondly, any observation directly or in directly which offends the preamble of the Constitution cannot be sustained.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Mohammed Yaqoob Mir and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew ruled that the verdict in December by Justice S.R. Sen (who has since retired) was “legally flawed”, and had gone beyond the scope of the original petition.

“There was no requirement to look into the issues which were not projected by either party. Petition was filed by one petitioner seeking issue of domicile certificate which was under process delay was in view of fake character of the birth certificate produced by the petitioner. The case set up by the petitioner has been sidetracked. Unnecessarily issue for determination has been sidelined resultantly judgment has travelled in a different sphere addressing the matters which were not at all issues in the writ petition,” the High Court said in its judgment.

Door Step Delivery Of Medicine

We Advertise


  • Phone
  • Email
  • Address
    Office: Lower Lachumiere Near Pear Tree Guest House
    Shillong, 793001
    For Advertisements
    Call Us Here 98634-49079/7085718589