Allahabad High Court Rejects PIL on Ram Temple Donation Probe
The Allahabad High Court on Monday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought an independent investigation into the alleged misappropriation of donations collected for the Ram temple in Ayodhya. The court observed that a petition on the same matter is already pending before the Supreme Court, rendering the PIL redundant.
A division bench comprising Justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla disposed of the PIL filed by local advocate Mohit Ashok. The bench noted that a similar petition filed by Ajay Kumar Rai is currently under consideration by the apex court. The court stated that since the issue is already before the Supreme Court, there is no justification for the High Court to examine the same controversy.
Court Criticizes Petitioner for Media Interviews
During the hearing, the bench heavily criticized the petitioner for giving interviews to the media before the matter was heard. The court remarked that such conduct appeared to be an attempt to gain cheap publicity. The bench cautioned the petitioner against repeating such actions in the future.
The PIL also sought directions for an audit of the temple's finances by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). However, the court did not consider the merits of the case due to the pending Supreme Court petition.
Supreme Court Order Cited
At the outset of the hearing, Additional Advocate General Vinod Kumar Shahi informed the bench that the Supreme Court, while hearing Rai's petition, had on June 29 directed that the matter be listed after the summer vacations. The High Court bench reviewed the Supreme Court's records and order dated June 29.
The bench observed, "On a perusal of the writ petition, specially the relief clause, and comparing it with the relief clause herein, we find that reliefs prayed in this writ petition are substantially similar to the one prayed in the aforesaid writ petition (of Supreme Court)." Consequently, the bench disposed of the PIL without delving into its merits.
Implications of the Decision
This decision underscores the judicial principle that lower courts should not entertain matters already under consideration by the Supreme Court. The alleged embezzlement of donations for the Ram temple remains a contentious issue, with the Supreme Court expected to provide further direction after the summer recess.
