Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that "mere construction of a temple by any person on his private property cannot offend the religious sensibilities of any other community".

The division bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Surendra Singh held that a person's right to construct a temple on his private property is protected by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and mere objection by a few persons belonging to other religions cannot be a ground to restrict such rights.

The court was dealing with a writ petition filed in the year 2018 by Acharya Pramod Krishnam Ji Maharaj, the Peethadhishwar of Sri Kalki Dham in Village Achora Kambo, Tehsil and District Sambhal.

The petitioner had purchased certain properties in the village and had planned to lay the foundation of Kalki Dham Temple there in 2016. However, one resident of the village namely Inamur Rahman Khan claiming himself to be the National President of the Muslim Kisan Union filed a representation before the administration authorities opposing the construction of the temple. 

A similar report was also submitted by the Deputy District Magistrate, Sambhal to the District Magistrate, Sambhal who, apprehending breach of peace due to opposition by a religious community to the foundation laying ceremony restrained the petitioner from making any constructions or laying the foundation of the Temple without obtaining permission from the district administration.

Consequently, the petitioner could not lay the foundation stone of the Temple on the earlier decided date and being aggrieved by the District administration's decision, he moved the high court seeking relief. 

He claimed that the District Magistrate, Sambhal had passed the order restraining him from laying the temple's foundation stone ex parte and without giving any opportunity of hearing to him.

The high court noted that the reason given by the District Magistrate, Sambhal was that Sambhal is a communally sensitive area and the construction of the proposed Temple was being opposed by a religious group which might disturb the law and order in the area.

The order of the District Magistrate, Sambhal also stated that a mosque existed within 144 meters from the plots on which the Temple is to be built.

The division bench held that it was not the case of the administration or any person that the petitioner had illegally encroached or had illegally acquired the plots and the religious beliefs of the petitioner insulted the religious or personal sensitivities of any person or community.

So far as public order is concerned, the only ground stated in the order dated 30.10.2017 is that certain leaders of another religious community had informed the administration that the construction of the Temple was a new tradition and would be opposed by their community, the court stressed.

In view of the same, court held that "any act by any person of either community which could disturb communal peace, social harmony or public order in the area after the construction of temple has to be controlled by the district administration".

Court underscored that it is the duty of the administration to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen and in this case, the petitioner also had the right to use his property in a manner that was not prohibited by law.

Therefore, while holding that the order of the District Magistrate was based on presumptions and surmises, court directed the concerned Zila Panchayat, before whom the petitioner had already submitted a map of the temple, to consider the same and pass appropriate orders without being persuaded by the observations of the District Magistrate made in his order.

Case Title: Acharya Pramod Krishnam Ji Maharaj v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others