Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

A Supreme Court bench of Justices Chandrachud and Pardiwala on Friday, while dismissing a writ petition filed by a denomination of the Jain community, held that persons belonging to same religious denomination can’t invoke Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction to enforce their rights under Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

The court further directed that a suit be instituted by them in a civil court as the dispute may require adducing evidence. "The parties in such cases should, therefore, file a civil suit and contest the matter before the trial court", the Court added.

The bench was hearing a plea wherein, followers of Mohijeet samudyay of the Shwetambar Murti Poojan sect, alleged illegal conversion of their places of worship, which is common to the Tapagacch denomination, to suit a particular sect of the Tapagacch denomination.

They had moved the apex court, seeking directions of the court for:

1. Enforcement of Places of Worship (special provisions) Act, 1991
2. Prevent conversion of their places of worship
3. Stop the takeover of their Places of worship
4. Ensure that all places of worship are open to all members of the Tapagach sect.
5. Display boards to be affixed at the temples mentioning names of denominations and its section.

Appearing for the petitioners, Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv, argued that if, the temples meant for the worship of the entire Tapagachh denomination, is permitted to be converted into a place of worship of just one denomination, the fundamental right of other sects to profess, practice and propagate their religion will be violated. Datar further argued that instituting a civil suit in each state where the community is dominant, will become a cumbersome process.

The bench, however, observed that the matter required consideration by a civil court in form of a civil suit. The bench also asked the petitioners to narrow down on states where the population of the community is sizeable. It was further opined that this was not a case of conversion. The bench commented that it has become a trend to convert civil cases into criminal ones.

Justice Chandrachud said, “You have a remedy under Section 92 of CPC. Entertaining this means evidence will have to be given and some monk has to step into the evidence box!" 

Thus the court dismissed the plea and recorded that the dispute in the case is essentially between two segments of the same community and that "the resolution of this dispute cannot be decided under Article 32. 

Case title: Sharad Zaveri Vs Union of India