Karnataka High Court: Sanctity Of Temple Not So Fragile As To Be Endangered By Presence Of Creator’s Children Who By Circumstance Live Modestly Beside It
The Karnataka High Court said that the Temple Samithi lamentably contended that the mere presence of slum dwellers around the hallowed precincts of the temple, erodes its sanctity and serenity and offends the religious sentiments of countless devotees.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court remarked that the sanctity of a Temple is not so fragile as to be endangered by the presence of the creator’s children who, by accident of circumstance, live modestly beside it.
The Court remarked thus in Petitions preferred by devotees of Sree Kalikamba Temple against the acquisition proceedings under the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973. A companion Review Petition was filed by Sri Kalikamba Seva Samithi seeking review of the Order of the coordinate Bench in a Writ Petition, seeking eviction of slum dwellers.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “In a Nation whose Constitution enshrines equality for all, where every citizen, be they exalted or downtrodden, affluent or impoverished, is vested with the same fundamental rights. Therefore, such a contention projected by the Temple Samithi is wholly untenable. Equality does not admit gradations of worth; it encompasses the entirety of our citizenry. The sanctity of a Temple is not so fragile as to be endangered by the presence of the creator’s children who, by accident of circumstance, live modestly beside it. To suggest otherwise, is to deny the very universality that our Constitution professes.”
The Bench said that the Temple Samithi lamentably contended that the mere presence of slum dwellers around the hallowed precincts of the temple, erodes its sanctity and serenity and offends the religious sentiments of countless devotees.
Senior Advocate R.V.S. Naik, Advocates Mahesh R. Uppin, and Anil Kumar S. represented the Petitioners while Additional Government Advocates (AGAs) Mohammed Jaffar Shah, K.S. Rahul Cariappa, Advocates M.P. Srikanth, Clifton Rozario, and Anil Kumar represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Petitioners were the devotees of Sree Kalikamba Temple in Mandya. The Respondents included State, Deputy Commissioner, the Karnataka Slum Development Board (KSDB) and its officers, and Sree Kalikamba Seva Samithi. It was averred that Sree Kalikamba Temple came into existence in 1940s over a land in Mandya city. In 1961, the Deputy Commissioner was granted guntas of land of Mandya village in favour of certain persons to be used for non-agricultural purposes. The land was surrounding the temple but the katha was made in the name of the temple as it was adjacent to the temple and coming within Mandya Municipality.
The management of temple was later taken over by Sree Kalikamba Seva Samithi and thereafter, a notification was issued under the 1973 Act, declaring the slum areas in existence in Mandya City to be cleared or refurbished. The Temple Samithi pursued the matter of shifting 23 slum dwellers of Kalikamba temple to the houses constructed in Tamil Colony. Nothing was done for close to 24 months and hence, it approached the High Court seeking eviction of remaining slum dwellers. The Court granted an Order of status quo and the process of shifting did not take place. Subsequently, a final notification was issued in 2018, notifying 20 guntas of land of Kalikamba Temple as slum area. Challenging the notification, the devotees approached the High Court.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “What is surprising is the Temple Samithi does not challenge the acquisition proceedings, but the devotees have come forward to challenge the notifications. The Temple Samithi is wanting to shoot from the shoulders of the devotees.”
The Court enunciated that the devotees cannot be construed to be persons interested even in terms of the Act and that the Petitioners who have challenged acquisition proceedings are neither persons interested nor owners of the property.
“The Temple Samithi is aware that it has itself encroached upon Government land and, therefore, has not come forward to challenge the acquisition, but is wanting to be done through the devotees. Therefore, for a challenge to the acquisition under the Act, the petitioners are neither persons interested nor owners. Therefore, they have no locus to challenge acquisition proceedings. The subject petition is not a petition filed in public interest”, it said.
The Court was of the view that the Petitioners are not religious minorities to contend that rights under Article 29 of the Constitution are violated, as violation of Article 29 can be claimed by the declared religious minorities.
“The Temple Samithi in the review petition has dedicated a paragraph contending that the serenity and sanctity of the temple would be lost, if slum dwellers reside in the vicinity of the temple. … What deeply wounds the conscience of the Court are the contentions advanced by the Temple Samithi”, it further remarked.
The Court observed that the contention proclaims that slum dwellers are lesser beings, bereft of the right to devotion, right to shelter and a right to dwell beside a place of worship and such an assertion, in this enlightened age, is appalling.
“The notion that the divine aura of a temple could be diminished by the proximity of humble homes are sullied by the entry of a slum dweller bespeaks a mindset steeped in prejudice and exclusion. This Court, cannot but observe, that such a stance is an attempt to rend society asunder along the lines of caste, class or creed”, it added.
The Court also said that the Committee, having consciously entered into a compromise, affixed the signatures thereto and permitted a final notification to be issued upon its very foundation, endorsed by the coordinate bench of the Court, the Temple Samithi cannot now disavow the solemn statement.
“To contend otherwise, at this late hour that no Resolution authorized the execution of a settlement is an afterthought, bereft of substance or credibility. Once the compromise has been recorded and acted upon, it binds its signatories with the full force of law. The volte-face attempted cannot be countenanced. The petition being without merit, must therefore fail”, it noted.
Conclusion
Moreover, the Court emphasised that if India has to endure as a nation of the first order, it cannot consign any of its citizens to a second class existence and the dignity of slum dwellers is no less sacred that of the devout.
The Court added that the rights of one cannot be secured by the suppression of the other and the Constitution of India knows no hierarchy of human worth, all are equal before its gaze.
“The review petition is preferred after 8 years of the closure of the petition, only after looking into the objections filed by the Board in the writ petition. Even otherwise, it was a compromise entered into with eyes wide open by all the protagonists to the lis. The Temple Samithi did not challenge it even. It cannot be permitted to challenge it now, that too in the garb of filing a review petition. There is no error, apparent on the face of the record as obtaining under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, for this Court to interfere and review/recall the order and restore the file for its fresh hearing”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petitions.
Cause Title- Ikkalakki Ramalingegowda & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO.58187 OF 2018 (GM - SLUM)]
