State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Shree Rani Satiji Mandir & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9922 of 1988.
Petitioner: State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Respondent: Shree Rani Satiji Mandir & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9922 of 1988.
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 01, 1988
Head Note:
COMMISSION OF SATI (PREVENTION) ACT, 1988:
Glorification of Sati – Shri Rani Satiji Mandir at Jhunjhunu – No prosecution to be launched for the puja offered within the temple – Distsiction between the offering of puja and holding of the mela outside.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The order made by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 18th of August, 1988 in a writ petition, is challenged before this Court in this application for Special Leave. By our order dated 30th of August, 1988, we have transferred that writ petition to this Court for disposal along with connected matters, and the record of the writ petition has already been received in this Court and has been made available by the Registry to us today. Now that the original proceeding is before us and the application for special leave against an interlocutory order is ordinarily not entertained, we do not propose to entertain the special leave petition. We shall treat the leave application as one for modification of the order of the High Court dated August 18, 1988.
2. We have heard learned counsel, Dr. Chitale, in support of the application for modification of the order and Mr. A.K. Sen and Dr. L.M. Singhvi in support of the stand taken by the other side.
3. The petitioners have maintained that the Shree Rani Satiji Mandir at Jhunjhunu in the State of Rajasthan is not an institution to which the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 3 of 1988 has application; offering puja within the temple does not constitute glorification of Sati as defined in the Act, and, therefore, the District Magistrate whose order of 1st August, 1988, is impugned in the writ proceedings was not entitled to exercise powers under the Act to prohibit religious rites within the temple. Dr. Chitale does not accept this position and contends that the puja offered within the temple amounts to glorification of Sati and is an offence.
4. One fact which is not in dispute is that the temple has been in existence for centuries – whether four or seven is not very material – and from the affidavit made by the Assistant Collector which has been filed in this Court yesterday, we find that regular puja is performed five times a day in this temple. Apart from what is disputed to be an image of Sati, there are images of lord Shiva, Hanumanji and other deities within the temple whom Hindu tradition accepts to be Gods. It is not for us at this stage to take a final view one way or the other; yet, there is a prima facie case for examination and it cannot be said that the petitioners’ claim is such that it can be rejected at the threshold. It would be difficult to rule out the contention of the petitioners until the matter is adjudicated and a final decision is reached. Petitioners have alleged interference with their rights and apprehend that criminal prosecution may be launched against them. We direct that for the puja offered within the temple no prosecution be started as against those who offer puja until the matter is finally disposed of and the correctness or otherwise of the plea taken by the petitioners is finally examined in the writ petition.
5. We are told that on the Bhadra Amawasya which would fall on the 10th of September this year an annual Mela is due near the temple. Offering of puja inside the temple and holding of a Mela outside are certainly two different aspects and the Mela may give rise to problems of law and order. In the matter of holding of a mela, fundamental right may or may not be involved. In such circumstances, as in interim measure and pending adjudication of the dispute before this Court, we direct that no mela shall be held either on the 10th of September or at any time until further orders. We would like to add that even counsel for the petitioners are prepared to maintain a distinction between the offering of puja within the temple and holding of the mela outside.
6. Since there is apprehension of disturbance of law and order the State Authorities are free to regulate the gathering of people around the temple even for offering of puja but those who intend to offer puja within the temple may not be physically obstructed and no impediments other than for regulating may be placed by the State Government and its officers in the matter of offering puja within the temple.
7. Dr. Chitale has told us in response to the request made by Dr. Singhvi that if the annual meeting of the Society is held within the temple complex but outside the temple there will be no objection from the State Government.
8. Some applications for intervention are said to have been filed. The same may be numbered in due course and placed for directions in due course before an appropriate Bench.
1. The order made by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 18th of August, 1988 in a writ petition, is challenged before this Court in this application for Special Leave. By our order dated 30th of August, 1988, we have transferred that writ petition to this Court for disposal along with connected matters, and the record of the writ petition has already been received in this Court and has been made available by the Registry to us today. Now that the original proceeding is before us and the application for special leave against an interlocutory order is ordinarily not entertained, we do not propose to entertain the special leave petition. We shall treat the leave application as one for modification of the order of the High Court dated August 18, 1988.
2. We have heard learned counsel, Dr. Chitale, in support of the application for modification of the order and Mr. A.K. Sen and Dr. L.M. Singhvi in support of the stand taken by the other side.
3. The petitioners have maintained that the Shree Rani Satiji Mandir at Jhunjhunu in the State of Rajasthan is not an institution to which the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 3 of 1988 has application; offering puja within the temple does not constitute glorification of Sati as defined in the Act, and, therefore, the District Magistrate whose order of 1st August, 1988, is impugned in the writ proceedings was not entitled to exercise powers under the Act to prohibit religious rites within the temple. Dr. Chitale does not accept this position and contends that the puja offered within the temple amounts to glorification of Sati and is an offence.
4. One fact which is not in dispute is that the temple has been in existence for centuries – whether four or seven is not very material – and from the affidavit made by the Assistant Collector which has been filed in this Court yesterday, we find that regular puja is performed five times a day in this temple. Apart from what is disputed to be an image of Sati, there are images of lord Shiva, Hanumanji and other deities within the temple whom Hindu tradition accepts to be Gods. It is not for us at this stage to take a final view one way or the other; yet, there is a prima facie case for examination and it cannot be said that the petitioners’ claim is such that it can be rejected at the threshold. It would be difficult to rule out the contention of the petitioners until the matter is adjudicated and a final decision is reached. Petitioners have alleged interference with their rights and apprehend that criminal prosecution may be launched against them. We direct that for the puja offered within the temple no prosecution be started as against those who offer puja until the matter is finally disposed of and the correctness or otherwise of the plea taken by the petitioners is finally examined in the writ petition.
5. We are told that on the Bhadra Amawasya which would fall on the 10th of September this year an annual Mela is due near the temple. Offering of puja inside the temple and holding of a Mela outside are certainly two different aspects and the Mela may give rise to problems of law and order. In the matter of holding of a mela, fundamental right may or may not be involved. In such circumstances, as in interim measure and pending adjudication of the dispute before this Court, we direct that no mela shall be held either on the 10th of September or at any time until further orders. We would like to add that even counsel for the petitioners are prepared to maintain a distinction between the offering of puja within the temple and holding of the mela outside.
6. Since there is apprehension of disturbance of law and order the State Authorities are free to regulate the gathering of people around the temple even for offering of puja but those who intend to offer puja within the temple may not be physically obstructed and no impediments other than for regulating may be placed by the State Government and its officers in the matter of offering puja within the temple.
7. Dr. Chitale has told us in response to the request made by Dr. Singhvi that if the annual meeting of the Society is held within the temple complex but outside the temple there will be no objection from the State Government.
8. Some applications for intervention are said to have been filed. The same may be numbered in due course and placed for directions in due course before an appropriate Bench.
