Participation Of Public In Daily Temple Rituals Is An Important Factor To Determine Private/Public Character Of The Temple: SC

In this case, Pujaris of Ram Mandir Temple at Indore had filed the suit for a declaration that the temple is a private Mandir and the State has no right to interfere in the management, pooja-archana and in the possession of the agricultural land. They had also sought a decree of injunction against the state officials. Though the trial court had decreed the suit, the first appellate court set it aside. The High Court also affirmed the findings of the first appellate court holding that the suit property is recorded in the name of Deity and Ram Das and Bajrang Das were recorded only as pujaris and the name of pujari kept on changing and these pujaris do not belong to one family and there is no blood relation between those persons.

The Apex court bench, in the appeal filed by plaintiffs, observed that they have not adduced evidence regarding who constructed the temple and how he raised the funds. The Court also observed that, the entry of Shri Ram Mandir as the public temple in the register is a strong piece of evidence to hold that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple. Referring to Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj Etc. v. State of Rajasthan, the bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy said:

"The participation of the members of the public in the Darshan in the temple and in the daily acts of worship or in the celebrations may be a very important factor to consider in determining the character of the temple. In the present case, the appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that there is restricted participation of the public for darshan."

The court also agreed with the High Court finding that when the pujariship is not hereditary, the temple cannot be held to be a private temple. The bench said:

"If the temple was a private temple, the succession would have been hereditary and would be governed by the principles of Hindu succession i.e. by blood, marriage and adoption. In the case in hand, succession is admittedly governed by Guru-shishya relationship. Each pujari is not having blood relation with his predecessor pujari"

The court also noted that the plaintiffs were appointed the pujari of the temple by the Government, and thus are estopped from contending that Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple. Another aspect noted by the bench against the plaintiffs was that the Mandir property was taken on lease from the Government.

Read Judgment