Restricting Access To Temple Premises By Erecting Barricades Violative Of Fundamental Right To Practice & Propagate Religion: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court observed that restricting access to temples by erecting barricades or locks violates the fundamental right of every individual to practice and propagate their religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.
The Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 448, 427, and 143 of the IPC against the petitioner who was accused of attempting to enter the Mahakaleshwar Mahadev Ji Siddh Dham temple (temple) forcibly by allegedly cutting the lock on the door and creating chaos. The Court noted that the Trustees of the temple were creating “an unnecessary barrier to the public's right of access” by erecting barricades or locks.
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga observed, “Restricting access to such a place by erecting barricades or locks by private Trustees violates the fundamental right of every individual to practice and propagate their religion, as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The Trustees, while managing the affairs of the temple, cannot act in a manner that deprives any or certain section of society, particularly the marginalized, of their right to worship.”
Advocate Tushar Moad appeared for the petitioner, while PP H.S. Jodha represented the respondents.
The core of the matter is that the Trustees of the temple claim to have erected barricades to prevent worshipers from going beyond a certain point. However, the petitioner allegedly tried to cross the barricades forcibly, prompting the registration of the FIR.
The High Court noted that although the Trust was the complainant, it did not file a police complaint. Instead, the FIR was lodged by Sub-Inspector who claimed to have witnessed the incident.
The Bench found that the allegations in the FIR ex-facie did not establish any criminal intent (mens rea) on the part of the petitioner. “Sections 448 (house trespass), 427 (mischief causing damage), and 143 (unlawful assembly) of the IPC require an element of criminal intent or willful disobedience…the petitioner’s primary objective was to access a place of worship, a public temple, which is a lawful act in itself.” it explained.
Therefore, the Court held that the FIR was a “clear abuse of the legal process, initiated with ulterior motives.” The fact that the Trust did not itself file the complaint and that the FIR was registered by the police claiming to be an informer raised questions about the credibility and genuineness of the complaint, as per the Court.
“The petitioner’s Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe background cannot be overlooked, especially in light of the fact that access to religious institutions has historically been restricted for marginalized communities. The denial of access to the petitioner, and the subsequent criminal complaint, could very well be an instance of caste-based discrimination. Such discriminatory conduct by the Trustees not only offends the principles of equality but also perpetuates social exclusion, contrary to the constitutional mandate of ensuring dignity for all citizens, particularly those from oppressed communities,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR and observed, “At the cost of reiteration, the Trust/trustees must realize that the temple is a public place. Merely because it is managed by certain Trustees does not make it their personal property. Every citizen has the right to access the temple and offer prayers. In this case, it seems the Trustees are creating an unnecessary barrier to the public's right of access.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Sapna Nimawat v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:37546)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Tushar Moad
Respondents: PP H.S. Jodha; Advocate Kailash Khatri
