SC Asks Jharkhand Government to Find Possibility of Entry in Religious Places During COVID-19

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

A Special Leave Petition was filed in the Supreme Court. This was against an order of Jharkhand High Court prohibiting the participation of devotees in Shravani Puja in Deoghar district. The judges modified the impugned order and left the state to pass necessary orders.

Brief Facts of the case

The application prays for entry into the Baidhyanath Jyotirlinga Temple and Bana Basukinath Temple during the Shravan month. The Jharkhand High Court allowed only online darshan during Shravan. Further, the Court ordered that the Puja of Jyotirlinga would continue without any public participation.

A prayer was made to the HC requesting permission to a limited number of devotees to take part in the puja. The Court but deemed it inappropriate. It would amount to a deprivation of the right of those not participating. A prayer also requested permission for the participation of those residing in the Deoghar district but was declined. The Court stated that those people receive differential treatment when it comes to religious faith.

Arguments of the Parties

The petitioner bought to the attention of the Court how while religious functions are prohibited, marriages and public transport is allowed maintaining social distancing norm. Even gatherings of 50 people are allowed. Hence, such restrictions on puja are unwarranted.

The respondent submitted the directions passed by the Home Ministry that extending the lockdown till 31.8.2020. But, the petitioner argued that 20,000-30,000 pandas have been allowed entry in the Baidhyanath Temple; yet, no public is allowed in the premises. A video verified the same.

Court’s Observation

The Court stated that the total restriction placed by the High Court on darshan by the public is prima facie unreasonable. The argument showing the presence of a large number of pandas on the premise of the temple alarmed them. It might not be an ideal situation to prevent the spread of Coronavirus.

The Court asked the authorities to regulated this. Only limited persons must be allowed while maintaining social distancing norms. The state has to make sure that there are no large congregation, even of pandas. Further, the Court held that the High Court was wrong in restricting entry in the temple in the months of Bhado and Sharvan. The High Court should have let the state decide. If the government can make social distancing norms and proper arrangements, it should not be stopped.

Moreover, the Court noticed that other states have opened religious places around the country maintaining social distancing norms. The state must enforce such norms when places are opening throughout India. They need to put in the effort to try and make some arrangements so that the general public can avail of the places of worship.

Court’s Order

The Court disposed of the SLP. It modified the order of the High Court that imposed blanket restrictions on the entry to the temple. They requested the state to see if the limited entry of the devotees can take place. This request extends beyond the temples in question. It includes an entry in all such places of worship around the state.


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

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -