{"id":55228,"date":"1999-05-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-05-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999"},"modified":"2017-11-07T01:54:19","modified_gmt":"2017-11-06T20:24:19","slug":"renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999","title":{"rendered":"Renaissance Forum, Allahabad vs Union Of India And Another on 28 May, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Renaissance Forum, Allahabad vs Union Of India And Another on 28 May, 1999<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1999 (3) AWC 2103<\/div>\n
Bench: B K Roy, R Singh<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  Binod Kumar Roy and R. K. Singh, JJ.  <\/p>\n
 1. On going through this writ petition and the supplementary affidavit, it transpires that the real prayer of the petitioner is to quash the National Commission for Minorities Act. 1992 (Parliament Act No. !9 of 1992) on the ground that it is violative of the Preamble and Articles 14, 16(1), 51A(E and F) of the Constitution of India, its object being vague and not specific.\n<\/p>\n
 2. Following facts have been staled in the writ petition and its supplementary affidavit. The petitioner is a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860. It is a forum of intellectuals, whose main objective is to work for the unity and integrity of the nation and develop high values of life of all citizens in accordance with our rich cultural heritage and socio-economic development irrespective of caste, creed, religion, etc. It is a historical fact that in 1947, partition of India took place on the basis of Hindu and Muslim majority areas. Pakistan was carved out to give home to Muslims, who declared it an Islamic State. India, however, remained a secular State giving all its citizen equal rights irrespective of religion, language or caste, etc. and none was discriminated or favoured because of his religion or language. The makers of the Constitution of India enacted articles to give effect to its preamble, guaranteed fundamental rights to all citizens, irrespective of religion, caste or language, wherever they considered necessary to give any special status to any class of people duly incorporated exemptions but nowhere except in Articles 29 and 30, any exemption was made for religious minority rightly so because after the trauma of partition of country on religious basis, no provision could be made which may give rise to further partition ; by 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 the words “Socialist and Secular” were added in the preamble of the Constitution in order to<\/p>\n
emphasize    and        strengthen   the secular character of the Constitution which is its spirit and spell out what we  wished   India   to   be   and   make efforts   to   achieve   it    ;    it   is   the ‘, fundamental duty of every citizen to promote    harmony    and    spirit    of common  brotherhood  among all  its citizens     transcending     religious, linguistic or regional diversities under Article   51A   of   the   Constitution   ; during   1991   national   elections   all political parties tried to grab the vote banks   by   promising   many   things against the national interest to please certain sections of society and  they virtually  divided   Indian  citizens  on religion and caste basis ignoring its adverse   effect   on   the   unity   and integrity of India ; Congress-I through its   election   manifesto   promised   to give  a   statutory status  to minority commission with obvious purpose to secure   Muslims   vote–the   Muslims being in sizeable number and can tilt the fortune  of any political  party   ; under such political situation when divisive forces are on rise, thus it is the constitutional obligation of all of us to put a stop to such tendencies and this writ petition is an effort in that  direction   :   prior   to   February, 1992, the Minority Commission was in existence which used to submit a report    about    minorities    to    the Government of India for consideration but it did   not  have  any  statutory status but was serving the purpose of keeping   the   Government   informed about the problems,   if any,   of the minorities    without    causing    any annoyance  or  difficulty   to   majority community.        The         National Commission for Minorities Bill.   1992 was introduced and duly passed by Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha pursuant to   the   election   promise   made   by Congress-I    specially    to    Muslims without indicating the basic purpose and    satisfying    any   weakness    of existing or shortcoming desired to be rectified   by   this   Bill   and   this   Bill lacks clarity,  unambiguousness and well defined objectives required to be achieved   ;   the   Bill   strikes   at   the concept    of   National    unity    and integrity by recognising minority and majority rights more than what was given  in  the Constitution   :   the  Bill<\/p>\n
does not define  the  term  ‘minority’ though it is primarily and solely for the   minority   community   living   in India   and    states    that   it    means community notified as  such   by   the Central   Government   but   without specifying   any    guidelines    to    be adopted by the Central Government ; this cannot be a matter of choice by the Central Government and thereby Section    2(c)    is    excessive    and arbitrary      ;      the      Constitution recognised   religious   and   linguistic minority  only  and   that  too  for  the limited   purpose   to   establish   and administer educational institutions ; Article    350    (A)    and    (B)    of   the Constitution   make   provision   for appointment   of   special   officer   to monitor the safeguards provided for linguistic minority and the impugned Bill cannot be above that Article and it is, therefore, clear that it is not for linguistic  minority but for religious minority    only    ;    makers    of   the Constitution never felt the necessity of   giving    any    special    status    to religious   minority   :    Section   3(2) which   talks   of composition   of  the Commission         provides         for appointment of chairperson and six other persons as its members, out of which five including chairperson has to   be   of  the  minority  community thereby  it has   to  be   managed  by minority community for safeguarding its interest only and thereby it will certainly work with bias in favour of the minority and not in a true secular way ; Section 9 defines functions of the Commission   ;  Section  9(1)(b) authorises it to monitor the work of safeguards     provided     in     the Constitution   without   spelling   out which    safeguard    is    against    the Constitution ; Sections 9(1)(d) to (e) are against the secular spirit of the Constitution      and      superfluous inasmuch   as   it   is   presumed   that minority community are, not having enough protection or safeguards  or deprived of their right as citizen or are  being  discriminated   which   is wholly wrong inasmuch as all rights provided  in  the   Constitution   or   in other laws are equally available to all citizens irrespective of religion ; this also amounts to casting aspersion in the capability and fairness of courts<\/p>\n
to enforcement fundamental rights to the citizen and is thereby derogation of   courts    :    Section    9(1)(f)   is discriminatory and violative of Article 14  in  ignoring   others   and   making statutory   provision   for   minority   is discriminatory and hence violative of Article 14 ; Section 9(4) gives powers of  civil   court   to   the   Commission which   is  against   the   principles   of natural justice ; persons belonging to minority community will sit and judge on     matters     in     which    minority community  is  an  interested   party, which   is  against   the   principles   of natural    justice     ;     the    majority community may not have faith in the fairness    of    the    commission    for reasons the aforementioned   ;  it will create     complications     wherever administrative   authority   in   case  of any  trouble   are  summoned  to  give evidence     on     oath     or     produce document   ;   it   creates   duality   by establishing  two   courts   for   same purpose and thereby barred in law ; Section   10 provides for finance and account   of   the   Commission* ;   the whole expense of the Commission will be borne by citizens of India which is in contravention of Article 27 because taxes paid by the citizen will be used for promotion of religious minority ; the appointment of its members and staff is a public appointment whose expenses are to be  borne by  public fund whereas no public appointment can be reserved on the sole basis of minority    status    and    proviso    to Section 3(2) deflates its secular spirit and hence violative of Article 16(1) of the Constitution   ;   the provisions of the   Act   are   not   applicable   to   the Hindus who are in minority in J&K vide para 1 (2) who are forced to leave their houses while no such situation exists anywhere in India in relation to minorities   ;   the   subject   of   giving constitutional    right    to    minority community   is   neither   covered   by Seventh   Schedule   nor   under   any Article of Constitution and as such the Parliament has acted beyond its authority in making law of National Commission for Minority thereby the Act   is   liable   to   be   struck   down   ; during last few years it was observed that  political   parties  are  preaching religious  and  caste appeasement in<\/p>\n
the garb of uplifting them ignoring the fact that it is sowing seeds of disintegration of the nation and under such circumstances a patriotic citizen is not supposed to be a silent spectator but to plead before the Judiciary to rescue the nation within the constitutional frame work.\n<\/p>\n
 3. Referring to and relying upon the pleadings set forth fn the writ petition and its supplementary. Sri H. S. Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Act be declared unconstitutional ; and\/or its various provisions referred to in the pleading, be struck down. After the arguments were concluded and order reserved on 14.12.98. Sri Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted a written arguments referring to the following decisions of the Supreme Court in Wand Lal v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1980 SC 2097 ; State of Karnataka v. Union of India and<\/a> another. AIR 1978 SC 68 ; Union of India v. Harbhajan Singh Dhillon, AIR<\/a> 1972 SC 1061 ; M\/s. Sat Pal and Co. etc. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, AIR 1979 SC 1550, and Janta Da! v. H. S. Chowdhary and others, 1993 CrLJ 600.\n<\/p>\n
 4. We remind ourselves of the decision of the Apex Court in Misbah Alam Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and<\/a> another, AIR 1997 SC 1409, wherein following observations were made in regard to the National Commission for Minorities and some of the sections of the Act aforementioned :\n<\/p>\n
  “…..Section 3 of the National Commission for Minorities Act. 1992, for short the Act, provides that the Central Government shall constitute a body to be known as “the National Commission” for Minorities to exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the functions assigned to it, under the Act. Section 9 of the Act in Chapter III envisages the functions of the Commission. The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely, (a) to evaluate the progress of the development of minorities under the Union and States ; (b) to monitor the working<\/p>\n
of the safeguards provided in the Constitution and in laws enacted by Parliament      and       the      State Legislatures       ;       (c)        make recommendations for  the effective implementation  of safeguards  for the protection of the interests of minorities     by      the      Central Government      or      the      State Governments,….”.   Sub-section   (2) postulates     that     the     Central Government     shall     cause     the recommendations   referred   to   in clause 9 (c) of sub-section (1) to be laid     before     each     House     of Parliament      along      with       a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be  taken on the   recommendations   relating   to the Union and the reasons for non-acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendations. Thus, it could be seen   that   under   the   statute,   as rightly   conceded   by   the   learned counsel for the appellant, there is no  statutory  compulsion,  on  the part of the  State  Government,   to constitute a Commission called “the Minority Commission” in the State. On the other hand, by operation of Section 3 read with Section 9, it is the duty of the Central Government to      constitute      a      National Commission  and  it  shall   be   the duty   and   responsibilty   of   the National   Commission   to   ensure compliance   of the   principles   and programmes evaluated in Section 9 of the Act protecting the interest of the minorities for their development and   working   of   the   safeguards provided      to      them      in      the Constitution and the law enacted by the Parliament as well as the State Legislatures. The object, thereby, is to integrate  them in   the  national main   stream   in   the   united   and integrated      Bharat      providing facilities    and    opportunities    to improve their economic and  social status and empowerment……”\n<\/p>\n
 5. The above observations\/ findings recorded by the Apex Court renders many of the submissions made by the learned counsel as devoid of any substance.\n<\/p>\n
 6. We do not find any merit in the points taken for striking down the Act. The Parliament was fully<\/p>\n
competent to enact it. The impugned sections. In our view, are not vague and violative of any provision of the Constitution of India and we are unable to grant the desired relief to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 7.    In the result we dismiss this writ petition.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Renaissance Forum, Allahabad vs Union Of India And Another on 28 May, 1999 Equivalent citations: 1999 (3) AWC 2103 Bench: B K Roy, R Singh JUDGMENT Binod Kumar Roy and R. K. Singh, JJ. 1. On going through this writ petition and the supplementary affidavit, it transpires that the real prayer of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55228","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRenaissance Forum, Allahabad vs Union Of India And Another on 28 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Renaissance Forum, Allahabad vs Union Of India And Another on 28 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-06T20:24:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Renaissance Forum, Allahabad vs Union Of India And Another on 28 May, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-06T20:24:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999\"},\"wordCount\":1981,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999\",\"name\":\"Renaissance Forum, Allahabad vs Union Of India And Another on 28 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-06T20:24:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Renaissance Forum, Allahabad vs Union Of India And Another on 28 May, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Renaissance Forum, Allahabad vs Union Of India And Another on 28 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Renaissance Forum, Allahabad vs Union Of India And Another on 28 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-06T20:24:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Renaissance Forum, Allahabad vs Union Of India And Another on 28 May, 1999","datePublished":"1999-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-06T20:24:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999"},"wordCount":1981,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999","name":"Renaissance Forum, Allahabad vs Union Of India And Another on 28 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-06T20:24:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renaissance-forum-allahabad-vs-union-of-india-and-another-on-28-may-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Renaissance Forum, Allahabad vs Union Of India And Another on 28 May, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55228","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55228"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55228\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55228"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55228"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55228"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}