'No One Can Impose His Understanding Of Religion On Others': J&K Court Rejects Self-Styled Godman's 'Vexatious Complaint' On Temple Rituals
‘Cannot Enforce Particular Interpretation Of Rituals, Hindu Faith Not Fragile’: J&K Court Orders Jail For Self-Styled Godman Over ‘Vexatious Complaint’
Observing that Hinduism is "not so weak and fragile" as to require self-styled religious guardians to invoke criminal law over disagreements concerning temple rituals, a court in Udhampur ordered the imprisonment of a Rajasthan-based godman after he refused to pay compensation imposed for filing what was found to be a frivolous and vexatious criminal complaint.
District Judicial Mobile Magistrate (T), Udhampur, Rishabh Koushal made the observation while dealing with proceedings initiated against Baba Sita Ram Dass, who had sought criminal action against several persons associated with a temple on the ground that certain Hindu rituals and idol installations had allegedly not been performed in accordance with what he considered to be the correct religious practice.
The Magistrate observed that the complainant had described himself as a self-styled godman who was attempting to protect religion. Rejecting that justification, the Court remarked,
"The Hindu religion is not so weak and fragile that it may require the complainant to file frivolous cases against the people."
Background:
The complaint alleged that various temple rituals had been conducted contrary to Hindu customs and traditions. Among other claims, the complainant asserted that two Shivlings could not be installed under one tree, that certain idols had not been installed in the proper manner, that prescribed rituals had not been followed during religious ceremonies, and that temple authorities had ignored his directions regarding religious practices.
The complainant further claimed that violations of these rituals had religious consequences and sought criminal prosecution under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
However, during examination on oath, the complainant admitted that the alleged incidents related to ceremonies conducted in 2017. The Court also noted that the complaint disclosed an underlying grievance relating to alleged non-payment of remuneration, with the complainant asserting that he had been paid only ₹1,700 despite having rendered services at the temple.
Court's Observations:
While dismissing the complaint at the threshold, the Court held that the allegations merely reflected the complainant's personal disagreement with the manner in which religious ceremonies had been performed.
The Magistrate observed that it was not even the complainant's case that the proposed accused had acted with any intention to insult, outrage or wound religious feelings. Instead, the entire complaint was founded upon his personal interpretation of religious practices and rituals.
The Court emphasised that criminal law cannot be used to enforce a particular interpretation of religious customs.
"The criminal law cannot be invoked for enforcing a particular interpretation of religious rituals, customs or beliefs especially when there is no allegation of deliberate or malicious intent to insult or outrage religious feelings."
Highlighting India's religious diversity, the Court observed that customs and ritualistic practices frequently vary across regions, sects and communities and that no individual could impose his personal understanding of religion upon others through criminal proceedings.
The Court further found that the complaint was barred by limitation because the alleged events pertained to 2017, whereas the complaint had been instituted almost nine years later without any satisfactory explanation.
Examining the penal provisions invoked by the complainant, the Court concluded that none of them were attracted by the facts pleaded. It held that allegations regarding improper performance of rituals could not constitute offences relating to outraging religious feelings, promoting enmity, cheating, defamation or other provisions cited in the complaint.
The Magistrate also noticed that the complaint disclosed a monetary dispute concerning alleged unpaid remuneration and held that the complainant had attempted to give a criminal colour to what was essentially a civil grievance. Relying on recent Supreme Court decisions cautioning against misuse of criminal proceedings for settling non-criminal disputes, the Court dismissed the complaint and discharged all proposed accused persons.
After dismissing the complaint, the Court initiated proceedings under Section 273 BNSS, observing that the criminal case had been instituted without reasonable cause and had subjected the proposed accused persons to unnecessary harassment and legal expenses.
Rejecting the complainant's explanation, the Court reiterated that he could not impose his own religious diktats on others in a pluralistic society and directed him to pay compensation of ₹7,000 each to seven persons who had contested the proceedings, aggregating ₹49,000.
When the matter was subsequently taken up, the complainant neither paid the compensation nor complied with the Court's directions. The Court noted that despite being aware of the order, he chose to absent himself from the proceedings and attempted to delay enforcement by filing an application seeking deferment.
Observing that frivolous criminal litigation consumes scarce judicial resources and causes needless hardship to innocent persons, the Magistrate imposed the maximum default sentence permissible under Section 273(3) BNSS and directed that the complainant undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days. A warrant of arrest was also issued for securing his presence.
After being produced before the Court pursuant to execution of the warrant, the complainant again refused to deposit the compensation amount. The Court consequently directed that he be lodged in District Jail, Udhampur, to undergo thirty days' simple imprisonment, while clarifying that he would be released if the compensation amount of ₹49,000 was deposited.
Case Title: Baba Sita Ram Dass v. Bishan Dass & Ors.