Restricting access to temple premises by erecting barricades violates Fundamental Rights

In a criminal miscellaneous petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court’s Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun Monga, an order was passed   for quashing the FIR filed on May 14, 2024, at Police Station Ambamata, Udaipur. The petitioner, Sapna Nimawat, had sought  dismissal of the FIR, which was registered under Sections 448, 427 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was received by the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, alleging that some individuals were causing disturbances at the Mahakaleshwar Mahadev Ji Siddh Dham temple. In the course of the investigation, the complainant (Respondent No. 2), gathered witness statements and secured a video CD. The video revealed that the petitioner, along with others, attempted to forcibly enter the temple forcibly  by cutting the door lock. Consequent to this Respondent No. 2  filed  a report with the SHO of Police Station Ambamata, Udaipur, seeking appropriate  action  which led to the registration of the FIR in question.

The  issue for deliberation was  can  trustees of the Temple(not a party but represented  in the hearing by their counsel) who   claim to have erected barricades  prevent worshippers from going beyond a certain point. It should be mentioned here that although the Trust appears to be the complainant , it did not file a police complaint. Rather, it was  sub-inspector Rajiv Sharma who lodged the FIR   claiming  to have  witnessed  the incident. 

After reviewing the relevant IPC sections , the court noted that  the allegations in the FIR ex-facie  do not establish any criminal intent of  the petitioner, as Indian Penal Code (IPC)  sections of  448, 427 and 143   applied   necessitate an element of intent or wilful disobedience.  The court further observed  that the petitioner’s primary purpose  was  to enter a public temple for worship, which is a lawful act. There was no indication that the petitioner intended to cause harm, damage property, or disturb public order. As a result, no prima facie case exists for applying the IPC provisions.

“A temple is a public place of worship, accessible to all citizens regardless of caste, creed, or social standing. Restricting access to such a place by erecting barricades or locks by private Trustees violates the fundamental right of every individual to practice and propagate their religion, as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The Trustees, while managing the affairs of the temple, cannot act in a manner that deprives any or certain section of society, particularly the marginalized, of their right to worship. The FIR thus appears to be a clear abuse of the legal process, initiated with ulterior motives.” .It was also the court’s   reasoning  that  since the complaint was not  filed by the temple trust rather by a sub-inspector whose claimed to be an informer it  raises serious doubts about the genuineness and credibility of the complaint .  

 It is also notable to mention  the court’s observation regarding   the petitioner's caste which according to the court, ‘’ cannot be overlooked’’. The petitioner   being from Scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribe, the denial of access and the subsequent criminal complaint could be very well considered a caste based discrimination. ‘’ Access to religious institutions has historically been restricted for marginalizes communities’’  stated the court. 

The court also pointed out that the video   and photographic evidence that formed the basis of the FIR did not support the allegations of forceful entry or property damage made  out in the FIR. The petitioner merely attempted to cross a barricade to enter a public temple . This act, without any accompanying   evidence of violence, force  or mischief cannot be categorized as criminal trespass or mischief under Sections 448 and 427’’ stated the court.  Furthermore, the invocation of Section 143 (unlawful assembly) was also unwarranted, as the petitioner was simply trying to access the temple, a lawful act, without any intent to commit violence or disrupt public order.

The court allowed  the petition and quashed the FIR along and  all consequential proceedings , stating that, “the Trust/trustees must realize that the temple is a public place. Merely because it is managed by certain Trustees does not make it their personal property. Every citizen has the right to access the temple and offer prayers. In this case, it seems the Trustees are creating an unnecessary barrier to the public's right of access. The fact that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe may have caused some discomfort among the Trustees, leading to the denial of access. Such conduct by the Trustees is unacceptable.”

Advocate for the Petitioner: Tushar Moad.

Advocate for the Respondent: H.S. Jodha PP, Kailash Khatri – R/2.

Case Details: Sapna Nimawat vs. State of Rajasthan CRLMP No. 3421 of 2024.