'Petitioner Wants To Target A Particular Religion' : Karnataka HC Refuses To Entertain PIL Against Alleged Illegal Construction Of Crosses

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by one P Rudesh seeking directions to take action against alleged illegal construction of two crosses on a hillock in Chitradurga area.

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj termed the petition to be a motivated one and said, "On plain reading of both paragraphs, it is obvious that the petitioner is not pro-bono litigant. The petitioner obviously wants to target a particular religion."

The petitioner, who claimed to be a yoga teacher, stated that Hindu groups have held dharna against the illegal construction of the two crosses. To which the bench orally said "Every day we get two petitions regarding encroachments on government property and construction of Hindu temples illegally. This is purely motivated petition."

It added: "It is a matter of record in the suo-motu PIL regarding illegal religious structures, all religions have created illegal religious structures in the state. So can you say that communal disharmony is created only because of the erection of two crosses?

The petition also mentioned that gathering before the cross on every Sunday causes pollution. To which the court took strong exception it said "Do congregations cause pollution? In case of how many Hindu temples there are gatherings, that will not cause any pollution? This is all a motivated petition."

In its order the bench said "Even petitioners cannot plead ignorance about the fact that a large number of illegal religious structures have been erected by people belonging to all religions and sects. In the suo-motu pil regarding construction of illegal religious structures, there are several instances of Hindu religious groups constructing structures on public property that have been placed on record."

It concluded by saying that petitioner cannot be stated to be a pro-bono litigant and at his instance the PIL cannot be entertained.

It clarified that if the erecting of the structure is illegal the appropriate authority is bound to take action in accordance with law.

The bench is considering action against unauthorized religious structures in another suo-moto PIL.