In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed the Jain Sabha Dharmarth Trust to reserve a seat for the idol of Devi Padmavati in the sanctum sanctorum of a Jain temple located in Delhi. The case, titled Devi Padmavati through its follower Sh Ajay Jain vs Jain Sabha Dharmarth Trust, addresses the conflict arising from the removal of the idol during a renovation process and the subsequent legal action taken to restore it to its original position.
Background of the Case
The idol of Devi Padmavati, a revered deity in Jainism, was installed in the sanctum sanctorum of the Jain temple in Delhi in 1978. However, in 2018, the temple underwent renovations, during which the idols were temporarily shifted from their original locations. The idol of Devi Padmavati, however, was not returned to its designated seat. Instead, the Jain Sabha Dharmarth Trust, responsible for the temple’s administration, decided to place the idol of another tirthankara (spiritual teacher) in the same seat.
The issue escalated when a suit was filed in the deity’s name, seeking the restoration of the idol to its original position. The petitioner, Sh. Ajay Jain, a follower of Devi Padmavati, argued that the idol should not have been removed from the sanctum sanctorum, especially after over 40 years of its presence and worship in the temple.
Trial Court’s Dismissal and High Court’s Intervention
Initially, the trial court dismissed the suit, stating that God is omnipresent and that worship can be performed anywhere, not necessarily at the sanctum sanctorum. The court ruled that the removal of the idol did not infringe upon the religious practices associated with the temple. The trial court took the view that as long as rituals were being carried out in the temporary location of the idol, there was no harm in the removal.
However, the Delhi High Court took a different stance. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, who presided over the matter, criticized the trial court’s “flippant view” and the dismissal of the case without addressing the core issue. Justice Bhambhani emphasized the importance of the position and significance of the idol, which had been worshipped for several decades in the sanctum sanctorum. The High Court also noted that the issue was not just about the physical relocation of the idol but also about the deep religious sentiments of the devotees, which could not be disregarded.
High Court’s Interim Order
In light of the above, the Delhi High Court passed an interim order that required the Jain Sabha Dharmarth Trust to keep a seat vacant for Devi Padmavati’s idol in the sanctum sanctorum. The Court’s order mandated that while the idol remains in its temporary location, all the required rituals must continue to be performed for the idol in that space.
The Court’s directive highlights the religious and cultural significance of the temple as well as the idol’s rightful place within it. Justice Bhambhani remarked that “matters of faith cannot be scorned at in this manner” and observed that the trial court’s dismissal did not adequately address the rights of the deity whose idol had been worshipped in the temple for over 40 years.
The interim order is an acknowledgment of the delicate balance between the legal and religious dimensions of the dispute. By reserving the seat for the idol, the Court sought to maintain the status quo while allowing the Trust to continue its renovations and perform rituals for the idol in its temporary location.
Legal Implications and Religious Rights
This case brings to the forefront a complex issue of religious rights, the sanctity of places of worship, and the legal recognition of religious practices. It touches on the interplay between law and faith, particularly when religious customs and traditions are altered or disrupted due to renovations or changes in temple management.
From a legal perspective, the case underscores the importance of respecting religious practices and beliefs, especially when such practices have been followed for generations. The Court’s intervention is significant because it acknowledges that faith-based disputes cannot be resolved solely on the basis of technical legal arguments. Religious sentiments play a vital role in such matters, and the legal system must take these into account when making decisions that affect religious communities.
Precedents and Judicial Trends
The Delhi High Court’s ruling is consistent with a broader judicial trend where courts have increasingly recognized the significance of religious and cultural rights in India. Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have often been called upon to decide matters related to religious practices, temple management, and the rights of deities. In many instances, the courts have ruled in favor of maintaining the sanctity of religious rituals and the rights of religious communities to uphold their traditions.
In cases where there are disputes over religious practices or temple management, the courts have generally adopted an approach that is sensitive to the religious sentiments of the parties involved. This has been seen in several landmark rulings, including those related to the management of religious shrines and the protection of religious rights.
Future Developments
The case is not yet concluded, with the next hearing scheduled for August 28, 2025. The outcome of the case will likely have a significant impact on the management of religious spaces in India, especially in situations where renovation or alteration of a place of worship leads to conflicts over religious rights and practices.
While the interim order allows the Trust to continue its renovation process, the final judgment will provide more clarity on the legal principles that govern such disputes. It may also set important precedents regarding the rights of deities and the role of religious practices in public and private spaces.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision to direct the Jain Sabha Dharmarth Trust to reserve a seat for Devi Padmavati’s idol in the sanctum sanctorum is a significant development in the legal landscape surrounding religious disputes. It underscores the importance of religious sentiment in matters of faith and highlights the court’s role in balancing legal and cultural concerns. The interim order reflects a careful approach that respects the integrity of religious practices while allowing for necessary renovations.
As the case progresses, it will be interesting to see how the courts continue to navigate the complex terrain where law, faith, and religious rights intersect. The ultimate resolution may have wider implications for similar disputes in the future.
