The Allahabad High Court has declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought directions restraining the Uttar Pradesh Police from allegedly interfering with the display of portraits of prominent Iranian Shia religious leaders, including the late Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, on private properties.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla observed that the petition lacked concrete facts and was based on broad allegations of police interference. In its July 7 order, the court noted that the plea contained only "general and vague" assertions regarding the alleged removal of posters and did not identify any specific incident, location, or property where such action had taken place. The Bench held that a PIL cannot be entertained on the basis of such omnibus claims and dismissed the petition.
The court, however, clarified that individuals who believe they have been subjected to unlawful action by police authorities are free to pursue remedies available under law. It observed that any person with a specific grievance against a police official could seek relief through the appropriate legal mechanism rather than through a generalized public interest petition.
The petition was filed by Majlis Ulema-E-Hind, which alleged that police personnel across Uttar Pradesh had been preventing members of the Shia community from peacefully displaying portraits of Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Al-Sistani during religious mourning gatherings. It sought directions to all district police chiefs, superintendents of police and station house officers to refrain from taking coercive action, including detentions, against individuals displaying such portraits in a lawful manner.
The organisation also requested the court to restrain the police from removing or directing the removal of banners, posters and portraits of internationally recognised Shia religious leaders displayed on the walls, gates or premises of private residences and commercial establishments. The High Court, however, found that the petition failed to establish any specific instance warranting intervention and declined to issue the directions sought.