‘Discipline Must Be Maintained By Devotees’: Calcutta HC Dismisses PIL For Guidelines On Visiting Jalpesh Shiv Temple, Directs DM To Consider

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking issuance of guidelines for regulation of pilgrims visiting the Jalpesh Temple shivmandir in North Bengal, on the grounds that the authorities were “depriving the petitioners of the fundamental right” to observe their age-old practise of offering holy water to the deity at the temple by entering its “garba griha.”

In ordering the District Magistrate and other officials to hold a public consultation/hearing looking into the suggestions placed by the petitioners “bearing in mind the convenience of the worshipping public,” a division-bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya held:

“So far as regulating manner of worship in temple or any other place, it best be left with the district administration to take care of the same. There are several instances in West Bengal where the district administration has been proactively regulating the influx of the pilgrims in various places of worship as well as places of public importance. Therefore the petitioner and his co-signatories should bestow confidence in the district administration that they will do the best to ensure that the devotees offer their prayers in an appropriate manner. It goes without saying that the admin on considering various issues such as the large influx of pilgrims during particular seasons are entitled to formulate procedures to maintain law and order and ensure the health and hygiene of the pilgrims who visit. Therefore we are of the view that the matter has to be entrusted with the district admin, consisting of the SP of police and other officials, including a representative of the temple management and three representative amongst the petitioners. The DM shall call for a public hearing and consultation, taking into account the suggestions made by the petitioners, which must be specific. A decision in this regard be made within three weeks from date.”

It was argued by the petitioners that there had been an earlier dispute regarding pouring of water on the shiv linga, pursuant to which an order had been passed by a division-bench noting that a PIL may be filed regarding framing of guidelines for places of worship, instead of a regular writ petition.

Petitioners argued that the division-bench had directed the BDO to consider the writ petition as a representation, and to take steps.

It was submitted that while no concrete steps had been taken in that regard, the temple was being visited by 3-4 lakh people on a daily basis, in the absence of any routine procedure, leading to overcrowding and commotion due to which may worshippers were being deprived of the right to enter the ‘garbha griha” and to pour holy water on the shiva ling.

Upon hearing these submissions, the Bench remarked:

“At least to our knowledge in Tarakeshwar, I visited, lakhs of people come, I interacted with the district administration, and even during the peak festival periods there was no disturbance due to an organised queue of pilgrims. How to decide this in a writ petition? Make your suggestions, let the admin decide. Unless there is will from people to fall in line, you cannot do anything. If you visit South India, in Tirumala for example, it is completely regulated. They put you in complexes with all facilities. In some cases it can take 72 hours in the queue. Discipline should be with the devotee public. If all of us are indisciplined then how is it possible? In the State of Kerala, even the former CM of the State has to go to the temple in line…Therefore it is on the mind-set of the people…we cannot direct them. Law and order is best left to the Temple committee. If they think they are more powerful than the deity, then we will disband the committee.”

Accordingly, in refusing to pass any directions, the bench referred the matter to the District Magistrate for convening a meeting with the BDO, members of the temple committee, petitioners, and jurisdictional police in order to take decisions on the framing of guidelines for worshippers with reference to the petitioners’ suggestions.

Case: Surojit Dasgupta Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors

Coram: Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 229