Bombay HC Denies Permission for Opening of Jain Temple

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

A Writ Petition for urgent relief was filed by the petitioner, a Jain Trust seeking the reopening of the Jain Temple to the public during the holy period of ‘Paryushan’. Bombay High Court denied the prayer in light of the broader public interest.

Brief Facts

On 11th August 2020, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking urgent relief for reopening the Jain Temples. The petitioner sought the aforesaid relief in light of the holy period ‘Paryushan’ from 15th August 2020 up to 23rd August 2020. In accordance, on 11th August 2020, the Bombay High Court directed the petitioner to submit their representations to the Secretary of Disaster Management. The present order has been passed after taking into consideration the reasoning provided by the Secretary, Disaster Management.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The petitioner submitted that on 30th May 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had issued an order for reopening the places of worship from 8th June 2020. Further, on 4th June 2020, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had published a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on preventive measures to be undertaken to curb the spread of COVID-19 in places of worship. Despite the aforesaid, the Government of Maharashtra has not allowed the public to visit religious places till yet. However, spas, gyms, malls, liquor shops, market complexes, etc. continue to be open to the public.

Respondent’s Submissions

The Secretary, Disaster Management and Rehabilitation (DMR) have submitted that as on 11th August 2020, the total population affected by COVID-19 in the State of Maharashtra is 5,35,601 and the total number of deaths is 18,306. The Secretary, DMR has also provided a breakdown of these numbers for Mumbai City, MMR Area, and Pune Districts which portray that Maharashtra is one of the most affected states in India. The Secretary, DMR has accepted that the MHA allowed reopening of places of worship from 8th June 2020. However, the States/UTs have been given the liberty to prohibit activities/impose other prohibitions if deemed necessary. The decision to keep the religious places closed for the public is a conscious policy decision taken by the Government after assessing the prevailing situation.

It has also been submitted that the restriction on reopening of places for worship in the state has been followed for all other festivals viz—Gudhi Padwa, Ramadan Eid, Buddha Pournima, Bakari Eid, Dahi Handi, etc. A Writ Petition for yatra to Pandharpur during Ashadi Ekadashi was dismissed by the court on 30th June 2020 keeping in mind the current situation. The Secretary, DMR has submitted that it is impossible to monitor the social distancing conditions in places of worship strictly. A recent example of Tirupati Balaji Temple in Andhra Pradesh where 743 employees tested positive for COVID-19 has been cited by the Secretary, DMR in this regard.

The Respondents expressed concerns that if urgent relief is allowed in the present matter, similar applications will follow. This will further complicate the management of the pandemic.

Court’s Observations

Although the court agreed with the submissions of the Respondent, it acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the public due to the numerous restrictions imposed in light of the pandemic. The court also expressed that the public must appreciate the measures undertaken by the Centre and State to safeguard public health. It reiterated that the citizens must balance their religious duty with public duty and remarked “God is within us” and “God is everywhere”.

Court’s Decision

Justice Jamdar and Justice Kathawalla denied the urgent relief sought by the petitioner “with great reluctance”. However, the Bench didn’t dismiss the petition and placed it for direction on 7th September 2020. This was done keeping in mind that the present restrictions are in force only up to 31st August 2020.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -