Can't Invoke Article 32 To Enforce Places Of Worship Act In Dispute Among Same Religious Denomination : Supreme Court To Jain Sect

The Supreme Court, on Friday, refused to entertain a plea filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by members of the Mohijit Samudaya of the Tapagachh denomination of the Shwetambar Murtipujak Jain religion seeking to enforce the Places of Worship(Special Provisions) Act 1991 against the alleged conversion of places of worship by another segment of the same denomination. The petitioners, inter alia, sought direction to the State Authorities to enforce the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991; prevent coercive and rampant conversion; take steps to reverse conversion of place of worship; ensure all places of worship where Tapagachh followers are entitled to exercise religious rights are open to all members of the said denomination, including monks; cause display boards to be affixed at places of worship mentioning the section to which the places of worship belong according to the trust deed. A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and J.B. Pardiwala opined that evidence has to be adduced to prove the rights claimed by the petitioners and the said dispute cannot be resolved by merely relying on averments and affidavits filed in a Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950. In view of the same, the Bench granted liberty to the petitioner to file a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or avail other remedies in law. "We are inclined not to entertain a petition of this nature as the dispute in the present case is essentially between two segments of the same denomination, mainly the Tapagachh denomination of the Shwetambar Murtipujak Jain community. The resolution of the dispute cannot be on the basis of averments in a writ petition and counter affidavits….The nature of the rights that the petitioners claim have to be established on the basis of evidence…Sufficient remedies are available in the form of suit under S. 92 CPC or even otherwise."At the outset, looking at the nature of dispute Justice Chandrachud told Senior Advocate, Mr. Arvind Datar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner that suitable remedy would lie in a civil suit filed under Section 92 CPC. "This is a dispute - you belong to the Tapagachh denomination of the Shwetambar Murtipujak Jain community. You say the other denomination is trying to convert your places of worship; not allowing your priest to enter. You have to file a suit under Section 92."Mr. Datar submitted that in Jain temples belonging to the Tapagachh denomination, entry cannot be denied to other sub-sects. He urged that the same ought to be enforced by the State machinery. He informed the Bench that the petitioner has written extensively to Maharashtra and Gujarat Governments regarding this particular issue. Justice Chandrachud emphasised, "You file a representative suit."Mr. Datar expressed his apprehension that the outcome of the suit would not operate across the country. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to ask the State Government to ensure that the places of worship are not converted. Justice Chandrachud was of the view that the same would entail enforcement issues. He refused to accept Mr. Datar's submission that the writ petition pertained to the issue of conversion of places of worship. "This is not a case of conversion…This is a dispute between two groups of the same sect. You are prevented from entering, not a case of conversion at all."He also pointed out that the precedents suggest that in case of dispute between two factions of the same denomination, civil remedies under Section 92 CPC is to be availed. Justice Chandrachud lamented - "You want to convert all civil matters into criminal matters and all suits in writs." [Case Title: Sharad Zaveri & Ors v UOI & Ors] Click Here To Read/Download Order

Can't Invoke Article 32 To Enforce Places Of Worship Act In Dispute Among Same Religious Denomination : Supreme Court To Jain Sect

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags