The Supreme Court on Friday allowed Jain temples at Dadar, Byculla and Chembur in Mumbai to be opened to worshippers for the last two days of the Paryushan festival on 22-23 August to worship Tirthankars while observing the Centre’s SOP on opening religious places.
During the hearing senior advocate, Dushyant Dave appeared for Shwetambar Murtipujak Jain Trust and said that the state is policing malls, shops, barbershops and more. There are congregations in malls and gyms. Thousands of people stand in lines at liquor shops. When a community is saying they can police their people then why not allow?
CJI S.A. Bobde criticised the Maharashtra government for allowing the opening of malls and other economic activities but not temples. “We find it very strange that every activity that they are allowing involves commercial interests. They are willing to take the risk when money is involved bit when it comes to religion, they say that Covid-19 is there and we can’t do this or that,” said CJI Bobde.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Maharashtra government and said that the Ganpati festival is starting from Saturday. It’s the biggest festival in Maharashtra bar none. Restrictions have been imposed on it which the government has decided. CJI said, “You will have to take the decision case by case. Cannot have blanket permission or blanket ban if the number of people entering the Jain temple can be restricted.”
Singhvi said that there are over five lakh Jains in Mumbai alone and more than 45 lakh in Maharashtra, according to an old census.
There are innumerable temples. Gujarat had also come up with the same issue. CJI Bobde said that if it’s a matter of only five people at a time in a temple and this pattern can be followed in all three temples then they should be given the permission. “If it can be followed then why just Jain temples, why not have it in Hindu temples and mosques? The issue will be of who will implement it? Who will police it to ensure that rules are being followed?” said Singhvi.
Dave said that we are representing only five main temples in Mumbai. “We can regulate our temples.”
The CJI told Singhvi that his argument is most acceptable that the government cannot police all temples and places of worship. But what if the petitioner trust can police their temples?
“We can allow it for a group of temples, as far as others are concerned, we can set up a committee in the state or give power to the police commissioner to allow or disallow depending on the situation. We are not against any religion. It is a matter of state and we should be allowed to take the decision,” said Singhvi.
“This is exactly the criticism and the choice we had with the Rath Yatra. We were faced with a difficult choice even there. But we believed that if the distance can be maintained, merely pulling the rath will not be damaging. And as of yet, nothing wrong has been done,” said the CJI.
The Supreme Court said, “Lord Jagannath forgave us, your gods will forgive you too.”
In its order, the SC said, “We must make it clear that the order, in this case, does not extend to any other trust or any other temple. It is not intended to apply in any other case, particularly which involves a large congregation of people, such as Ganesh festival, which by their very nature cannot be controlled.”