- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
The Court was hearing a PIL seeking a direction to quash Section 4 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939.
The Delhi High Court today directed a petitioner in a public interest litigation (PIL) to file an affidavit disclosing his identity after it realised that the same person had appeared with a different name in another PIL which was heard a few minutes earlier. (Tuba Kamil vs UOI)
A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan directed the petitioner to state on oath all the details about himself and file the same before the next date of hearing.
The Court was hearing a PIL seeking a direction to quash Section 4 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939. While the first petitioner in the PIL was one Tuba Kamil, the second petitioner was named as Hari Mudgil.
As soon as the hearing began, the Court pointed out that the second petitioner i.e. Hari Mudgil seemed to be the same person who had appeared before it in another PIL concerning army personnel.
The Court recollected that in that PIL, which was heard only a few minutes before, the second petitioner appeared as 'Hari Kishan' and had claimed to be an army officer.
In response, the second petitioner informed the Court that his 'pet name' was Hari Mudgil and his identity card was in the name of 'Hari Kishan'. He also stated that he was indeed army personnel and was on leave till August 26. It was added that he was also a law graduate and that the main petitioner in the PIL was Tuba Kamil.
Following the Court's direction, the second petitioner also attempted to show his army identity card to the Court.
After remarking that an enquiry must be conducted to ascertain who the petitioner is, the Court directed,
The PIL has alleged that Section 4 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 is in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution of India and should thus be quashed.
The matter would he heard next on September 15.