The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, has declined to entertain an intervention application seeking pre-emptive directions against proceedings pending before a Civil Judge (Junior Division), observing that remedies must be pursued through the appropriate forum.
The applicant alleged that a trial court was misapplying or acting contrary to an earlier order passed by the Supreme Court in the main matter challenging the validity of a special act. He urged the Bench of Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant,Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi to restrain the civil court from passing any order inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s directions. The matter forms part of the larger constitutional challenge to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, pending before the Court.
During the hearing, an intervenor submitted that he had filed an application in July 2025 seeking vacation of the Court’s interim order, but that the application had not been listed. He argued that a civil court in Ajmer was allegedly acting in contravention of the Supreme Court’s earlier directions. He urged the Court to pass a “pre-emptory order” restraining the trial court from proceeding in a manner inconsistent with the apex court’s ruling.
The Bench, however, questioned the maintainability of the plea. “You are not even a party respondent,” the Court observed. When counsel clarified that he was an intervenor, the Bench observed:
“Please avail your effective remedy. You go to the High Court.”
The Bench made it clear that it would not pass speculative, anticipatory, or pre-emptive directions based on assumptions about what a subordinate court might do.
“If somebody passes an order in defiance of that, we will examine… is there any distinguishing circumstance or is it directly in the teeth of the order we have passed. Then consequences will follow.”
The court has also rejected the request for a pre-emptive restraint on the civil court. The Court emphasised that its existing order is binding on all courts and authorities. If any court misapplies or misconstrues the Supreme Court’s direction, appropriate remedies exist.
“We have passed an order. That order is binding on all and one… If an order is passed despite our direction, we are confident enough that we have enough power.”
On listing of intervention applications (IAs), the Bench indicated that it would ask the Registry to sort and classify the IAs, distinguishing between those seeking impleadment and those seeking interim relief, before listing them appropriately.
Appearances
Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. Nikhil Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Verma, Adv. Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. Dr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, Adv. Ms. Urvi Kuthiala, Adv. Mr. Kushagra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akarsh Khare, Adv. M/s. Ace Legal, AOR Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, AOR Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR Mr. Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR Mr. Sumit Teterrwal, AOR