Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

HINDUSTANI ANDOLAN & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Decided
24 November 1983
Judges listed
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1984] 1 S.C.R. 902 · 1983 INSC 184
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

CHANDRACHUD, C.J, The question raised in this petition is whether the Government can ask the police not to enter a. place t;f worship, even if criminanls are reported to be hiding or· harboured therein. It is impossible and undesirable for ariy Court to issue · a general writ of Mandamus to the effect that whenever a criminal is · suspected to have taken shelter in a place - of worship, the police must enter that place, regardless of the overall. situation of law.and order. Speaki.ng generally, Courts cannot enforce law and order by issuing general directions without reference to specific instances. The Government has to assess, in the context of tJis. ·prevailing conditions, the impact of the steps -taken to · enforce Ja;J and order. And, it is tlie executive which has to take a policy ·decision as ragards the .steps to be taken in a given situation, after taking into acco·1.nt tho d:m1nd; of tho prevailing situation. We do not commend or suggest that the police should be silent spectators to wanton destruction of life but we cannot, as men of some little exjYerience of law and life; commend that the police must enter places of worship forcibly. While enforcing law and order, the executive cannot be oblivious of the possibility that while solving one problem of law and order, others more acute than the one sought to be solved may arise. Jhat is always a valid and relevant consideration.

pp. 902–903, margin F

With these observations, we dismiss this petition 'filed_ by two

p. 903

public-spirited organisations through their courageous convenor and , secretary respectively.

p. 903

H.L.C. Petition dismissed.

p. 903