[Bonacaud Kurishumala] No Religious Community Has An Unbridled Right To Conduct Pilgrimage Inside A Reserve Forest Land: Kerala High Court

In this respect, a Bench comprising of Justice N Nagaresh stated,

"No religious community has an unbridled right to conduct pilgrimage to any place inside a Reserve Forest land. If any group of people forcibly enter any Reserve Forest Area and construct any structures unauthorisedly, such structures are liable to be removed by the Forest Authorities in accordance with law."

The Court made the observation when disposing of a batch of petitions relating to the Bonacaud Kurishumala, which is part of the Peppara Wildlife Sanctuary in Vithura, Thiruvananthapuram.

The petitions were moved in the High Court after the Neyyatinkara Latin Diocese (a Christian denomination), forest officers, members of tribal communities, and environmentalists clashed on whether the Diocese and its followers could conduct pilgrimage in the area and set up crosses at various parts of the Bonacaud Forest Area.

The petitions

The petitioner in the first plea belonged to a Tribal community. Along with the second petitioner an Environmentalist they sought that Paruthippally Reserve Forest/Peppara Wildlife Sanctuary and adjoining areas be notified under Section 3 of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The provision secures rights for forest dwelling scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers (forest rights).

Two petitions were filed by persons who asserted that the area was a pilgrimage centre. One petition, filed by the Rector of the Bonacaud Pilgrim Centre at Vithura where Bonacaud Kurishumala is situated. In his plea, he sought a declaration that the Bonacaud Pilgrim Centre has customary right to conduct religious rites at the Kurishumala. He additionally prayed that no objection be caused while the crosses were reinstalled and when prayers were offered in the nearby Amalolbhava Matha Latin Catholic Church in Bonacaud Tea Estate. The other petition asserted that the area is a well-known Pilgrim Centre that began in 1957 when a Holy Cross was installed by Christian believers. It was asserted that Hindus offered prayers at three places of worship in Marayoor division in Kanthalloor Range, which belong to Hindus. Since persons of other communities were allowed to worship denying the petitioners their right would violate Article 25 of the Constitution.

The fourth petition charged the rector and others of encroaching Bonacaud Forest and constructing crosses. The petitioners averred that the Bonacaud Forest Area is a notified wildlife sanctuary "Peppara wildlife Sanctuary" under section 18 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and was declared as a reserve forest during the period of Diwan of Travancore. They contended that the from the year 2013–14 onwards miscreants were trying to encroach into the Bonacaud Forest by constructing crosses at various locations in the forest land, naming 'Karichatti Motta' forest area as 'Kurishumala'. The petitioners argued that Forest Range Officers, Vigilance Wing of Forest Department and others had taken action against the miscreants. "The construction of 'Althaara' and concrete crosses and converting the area as a pilgrimage centre, would deprive the tribals of their livelihood", it was argued.

What the Court held

At the outset, the Court noted that there was a different place called Kurishumala far away from the area in dispute in the case.

After this observation, the Court pointed out that the church/believers erected 14 crosses between Amalolbhava Matha Church located in Mahavir Plantation, Bonacaud and Karichattimotta hilltop.

Additionally, he pointed out that there was no dispute that five of the crosses were constructed within forest land, along with an althaara.

The Judge in his ruling refers to the claim that the disputed area is called Karichattimotta and it is deliberately described as 'Kurishumala', but does not remark upon the same.

The Court, however, refused to discuss the question of whether the rector or any of the believers had a right of pilgrimage on the site. The Court found that the claim of the area being a pilgrimage site was disputed by the Forest Department.

Holding the question a disputed question of fact, the Court refused to delve into the question.

The Court responded to the averment by one of the petitioners who claimed that members of Hindu Community are permitted to make prayers at a Temple in the nearby Forest area.

In this respect, the Court referred a ruling of the Division Bench of the High Court which pertained to the question of prayers at the said Sree Agastyar Temple at Agastyakoodam peak. In the case, the Division Bench had denied entry to the Agastyarkoodam directed the Government to issue necessary orders restricting entry into the Agastyarkoodam.

Therefore, the Court ruled that no community had unbridled right to conduct pilgrimage in reserved forest land.

Though the rector insisted that there was a consensus reached for installation of Holy Cross at Kurishumala after a communication with the Chief Minister, the Court refused to discuss the matter further. Instead, the Court allowed the petitioner the liberty of pursuing the matter with Government Authorities or through any other legal proceedings in accordance with law.