The Allahabad High Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to restrain the Uttar Pradesh Police from allegedly removing portraits of prominent Iranian Shia religious leaders, including the late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Al-Sistani, from private properties across the State.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla held that the PIL filed by Majlis Ulema-E-Hind through its General Secretary Maulana Syed Kalbe Jawad Naqvi was based on vague and general allegations and lacked the factual foundation required for invoking its writ jurisdiction.
The petitioner alleged that police authorities across Uttar Pradesh had been unlawfully interfering with the peaceful display of portraits, banners and other visual representations of globally recognised Shia spiritual leaders during religious mourning assemblies.
It was further alleged that residents were compelled to remove portraits of Ayatollah Khamenei and that criminal proceedings had been initiated against peaceful mourners, resulting in an infringement of their constitutional rights, including the freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19 and 25 of the Constitution.
The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing all District Police Chiefs, Superintendents of Police and Station House Officers in Uttar Pradesh to refrain from taking coercive action against persons peacefully displaying portraits of Shia religious leaders or participating in religious mourning.
It also sought directions restraining the police from removing or interfering with the lawful display of portraits, banners and other visual representations of Ayatollah Khamenei, Ayatollah Al-Sistani and other recognised spiritual leaders on private residential and commercial properties. The petitioner further requested the Court to direct the State authorities to consider and decide representations submitted on June 12, 2026.
After examining the pleadings, the Division Bench observed that the petition contained only broad and unspecified allegations regarding police interference. The Court noted that the petitioner had failed to disclose even a single specific instance where the police had allegedly removed any portrait or banner.
It further found that the petition did not identify any house, commercial establishment or other premises where such action had allegedly taken place, nor did it explain the manner in which the purported removal had been carried out.
Holding that such omnibus allegations were insufficient to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Bench ruled that a PIL cannot be entertained on the basis of vague averments unsupported by concrete material or identifiable facts.
The Court clarified that if any individual is aggrieved by a specific illegal act committed by a police officer, the statutory remedies available under law may be invoked before the appropriate forum. However, in the absence of any specific cause of action or substantiated allegations, no blanket directions could be issued against the State police machinery.
Finding that the petition lacked the necessary factual basis for judicial intervention in public interest jurisdiction, the High Court declined to grant the relief sought and disposed of the writ petition without issuing any directions to the State or the police authorities.
The case arose in the backdrop of mourning gatherings organised by sections of the Shia community following the reported death of Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei in February 2026, during which portraits of Iranian religious leaders were displayed as part of religious observances.
The petitioner had alleged that police interference with such displays violated the community’s rights to religious expression. However, the High Court held that those allegations were not supported by specific facts warranting judicial interference in a PIL.
The post Allahabad High Court rejects PIL seeking to restrain UP Police from removing Ayatollah Khamenei’s portraits appeared first on India Legal.