Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs State To Give Complete Details Of Alleged 'Unauthorized Religious Shrines' Constructed In Police Stations

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday (December 16) asked the State government to submit complete details of the alleged unauthorized religious shrines which are stated to be constructed inside police stations across the state, including the number of such constructions and the date on which they were constructed.

The present plea was filed by a retired central government employee, now an advocate and demanded for the removal of allegedly unauthorized religious shrines constructed within police station premises across the state. The petitioner claimed that the construction of religious shrines in police station premises was violating the Supreme Court and High Court orders. The plea stated that courts had forbidden unapproved religious structures on public land on government-owned premises like police stations. In November the court had directed the parties to maintain status quo.

During the hearing on Monday (December 16), the counsel for petitioner submitted before a bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain, “In this petition we questioned the state government that under which authority of law, police men are making temples inside the police station and in the filing reply…they have filed objections”.

When the court orally enquired if the state had filed its response, the counsel appearing for the respondent/state replied, “We have filed preliminary objections your lordships. There is a separate enactment which is already in place...and in that enactment which they have also filed your lordships, and they have...”

At this stage the counsel for petitioner intervened and said, “I have filed the copy…not applicable in present case”.

The high court thereafter again asked the state counsel, “Pursuant to last order, have you filed the reply?”. The counsel however responded that as of now preliminary objections and submitted that the State shall file a detailed reply.

The court then asked, “Listen, this is some shrines in the police stations?”. To this the petitioner's counsel said,“Yes, your lordships, they are making shrines.”

At this stage the State's counsel said, “No work is going on, there is an interim order so work is not going on. It is stopped. We filed preliminary objections lord, with regard to the maintainability of the petition, because there is a separate enactment. This is known as the Madhya Pradesh Sarvajanik Sthan (Dharmik Bhawan Evam Gatividhiyon Ka Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2001. Under Section 6 of this Adhinyam, there is a specific provision, where the power is given to the collector to direct removal of unauthorized...”

The court however orally remarked that the petitioner was not against the separate enactment. It then asked, "He is against removal or construction?". To this the petitioner's counsel said that he was against the illegal construction.

The high court thereafter said, “Construction, then removal. Under what provision you're making construction in the Police Station?”

To this the state's counsel submitted, "there are some old constructions. New constructions had come up, because there was extra space there.”

The high court then orally asked,“Extra space me kya…Listen, this is a government land. It is not a private land that you can do whatever the manner you want…What you have said regarding the construction?”

The state's counsel then said, “There are very old temples also there.” To which the court said, “Old temple we will see thereafter. Right?”

The state however submitted that the petitioner had made "one statement" in the plea regarding the alleged illegal construction. To this court orally asked, "He has made statement. What is your reply? How many are there under construction or not there? And how many are the old ones? Have you given a chart to that?”.

The state submitted that it was in the process of filing a detailed reply, adding that it shall place all such details before the court.

The court however asked why had the State not placed the details pursuant to the court's last order.

The state's counsel then said, “since there is a separate mechanism there. Now if anything comes up like this, then there is a special enactment.”

At this stage the high court orally said, “Then we will direct the DG Police to remain present if that is the question. You have not filed the chart. Then you say there is a different mechanism.”

As the state's counsel said that it shall file a detailed chart the court asked it to file it within a week.

Meanwhile another counsel who said that he was appearing for an intervener said, “My lord, we are for the intervener. We are opposing the petition. We are a simple citizen of this country, my lord. I will tell why I should be here. Please come to the relief clause of this petition. Yes, what is my locus, my lord. Firstly, under the High Court Rules and Orders. And under the Order I Rule 8A, anybody who is affected by the petition may oppose...I will justify”.

At this stage the court orally asked the intervener's counsel, “How you are affected? The police station belongs to you? Listen, what is the purpose to construct all this? What is the purpose? Listen, if that is the purpose, you construct temple, mosque, church, gurudwara. You go and show that like an army for Sarva Dharma. You do it then. No issue at all.”

At this stage the petitioner's counsel said that this intervention shows that there are constructions made inside police stations. As the intervener's counsel began submitting again, the court orally said “Let them (state) file a reply then we will see.”

The court thereafter told the counsel appearing for the State, “You file a chart. How many are there. How many are old and of which year. You have to give detail completely.”

The court thereby, ordered that "status quo shall remain in force till further order".

The case is listed on week commencing January 6, 2025.

Case title: Om Prakash Yadav Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

WP No. 32891 of 2024