The Supreme Court today(September 9) reserved for orders a case concerning a dispute between the Shvetambara and Digambara sects of the Jain religion over the management of the Mahaveer Ji Jain Temple in Rajasthan.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran reserved it for orders, while directing the parties to file their written submissions within 8 days. Senior Advocates Aryama Sundaram(for petitioner) and Shyam Divan(for respondent) appeared in this matter and made brief arguments today.

Divan argued that there is no claim seeking conversion of the place of worship and therefore, the Places of Worship(Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is not applicable.

Per contra, Sundaram stated that the High Court shouldn't have entertained an appeal as the application for abatement of the proceedings was allowed under the 1991 Act. Since there is no provision for appeal in the 1991 Act, they should have filed a writ petition before the High Court. He further stated that it's an admitted fact that the affairs of the Deity, Temple and the attached properties were in the control, possession and management of the Digamber Jain sect.

"My learned friend is right, religion is a sensitive issue and this was the reason for the 1991 Act," Sundaram said.

While hearing the matter, Justice Pardiwala suggested both parties should deal with the issue carefully as it involves sensitivity. He urged them to stop fighting this litigation as it wouldn't please the Lord, for whom they claimed to be fighting for.

He said: "This is a very delicate issue, something to do with involving religious sentiments. So, without offending either of the sects, do you expect that in the morning, Shvetambara will perform rituals in their own way, and in the evening, Digambara will change the clothes of the Lord and perform the rituals? Why are you harassing the great Lord? Great, one of the greatest saints this planet has ever produced over a period of time. Why this unnecessary litigation? Do you think he is pleased by all this? Why are you offending one of the greatest Lord?"

The case arises from an application filed under Section 40(powers of the court on application under Section 38 or Section 39) of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, seeking the removal of the President and Secretary of the Digambar Samiti(Prabandhkarini Committee Digambar Jain Atishaya Kshetra Shri Mahaveerji) from managing the temple and requesting a new management committee from the Shvetambara sect. This was subsequent to an application against the Digambar Committee with respect to the management and administration of the temple, which was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in 1970. The Trial Court in October 1994 had ordered abatement of the proceedings after an application was filed by the Digambar Samiti under Section 4 of the Places of Worship(Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

An appeal was filed before the Rajasthan High Court, which the Digambara Samiti objected to since the proceedings were abated in light of the 1991 Act. However, the High Court held that any order passed under Section 40 of the 1959 Act is a decree and therefore, a statutory appeal lies before the High Court. It also said that the abatement of the proceedings under the 1991 Act doesn't deprive the aggrieved party of their statutory right to appeal. Against this, Digambar Samiti challenged it before the Supreme Court via a special leave petition.

Justice Pardiwala stated that the Court will not go into any other controversy and the respondent should convince the Court why the Section 4 bar is not applicable. Divan responded that this issue can only be decided based on evidence adduced. "I have no problem with the issue being framed on this but parties may be allowed to lead evidence and then it must be decided...I am not seeking conversion mylords. Management is only what we are concerned for the benefit of the Jain community as a whole."

On this, Justice Pardiwala said: "If it's just management, you may be justified in preferring an application provided you are able to highlight.....Will you give an undertaking that tomorrow, by chance, if you take over the management, you will not change the rituals and anything?"

Divan responded that religion is personal to everyone and therefore, the rituals will differ in the mannerism.

Case Details: PRABANDHKARINI COMMITTEE DIGAMBAR JAIN ATISHYA KSHETRA SHRI MAHAVEERJI Vs SHRI SANJEEV PALLIWAL|SLP(C) No. 23209-23210/2026