Hindu Public and another, etc., Appellants v Rajdhani Puja Samithee and others, etc., Respondents.
M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Societies Registration Act (21 of 1860), Sections 1, 20 - Applicability of Act – Society established for religious purpose - Can be registered under Act - 'Charitable purpose' in Sections 1 and 20 includes religious purpose.
Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (2 of 1952), Section 3(15) - Public temple - Members of public of a city conducting pujas and religious festivals on Government land for years – Society thereafter formed to obtain the Government land on lease - Leased obtained, religious functions carried on and temples put up by society through public money - Keeping membership of society open to members of all communities - Or adding some secular objects to memorandum of association and restraining activities only to its member - Cannot change basic religious character - Temples of society are public temples. (Source: AIR 1999 Supreme Court 964)
Calcutta H.C. on Rights of Worshipper
Samit Pani Brahmachary and others, Appellants v. Mayapur Chaitanya Math and others, Respondents.
GITESH RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE AND SUJIT BARMAN ROY, JJ.
Constitution of India, Article 25 – Worshipper Can file suit to protect his right to worship and to protect deity - Need not implead deity as necessary party. (Source: The AIR 1999 Calcutta 132)
Allahabad High Court On Construction of Masjid on Own Land
Mohd. Sharif Saifi vs. State of UP
M. KATJU AND S.I. SARAF, JJ.
Heard the petitioner in person and learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner has prayed in this petition that he wants to make a mosque on the land in question which is in village Kuri, Tehsil Thakurdwara, district Moradabad. It is alleged in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that the respondent No.4, the SHO of P.S. Dilari, Distt. Moradabad has restrained the petitioner from building the mosque in question till permission is obtained from the D.M. ...
We are not entering into the factual controversy as to who is owner or bhumidhar of the land in question, and this dispute can be decided by the Civil/Revenue Court. However, we wish to lay down the law in this connection.
This is a free and secular country. Subject to public order, morality and health, anybody is entitled under Article 25 of the Constitution to build any house of worship, whether it is mosque, church, temple etc. on his own land or on any one else's land with the consent of that person. Article 25(1) of the Constitution states :-
"Subject to public order, morality and health and to be other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion".
Hence, we make it clear that the petitioner is fully entitled to make a mosque on his own land or on someone else's land with the permission of that person, and if he does so the authorities will give him full protection, and take strong action against anyone interfering with the petitioner's right. No permission of the D.M. is required for this.
'Not Haji Malang, it's Machindranath'
Haji Malang, is a 300 year old dargah at Kalyan, in Mumbai, where Baba Abdur Rehman Malang has been buried. Malang was a Sufi saint who came to India in the 12h century AD from the middle east. Haji Malang .. one of the few dargahs where a Hindu vahivatdar (traditional priest from the Hindu Karandekar family) and a Muslim mutawalli (claiming to be distant kin of the saint), had both been officiating at religious rituals.
In 1986, however, the Shiv Sena kicked up a controversy over the dargah claiming that it was actually the site of a 700 year old Machindranath temple. Thane Sena leader, Anand Dighe in particular, espoused the cause in early 1996 and declared that they had been trying to "secure justice" for several years ... "Now that Shiv Shahi has been established in Maharashtra, it is but appropriate that the original temple be restored and regular pooja be resumed at the site", he declared in Feb. '96. Though the renaming of the shrine was "one of the foremost objectives" of the Sena, according to Dighe, he declared that they would not do it that year ... On Feb. 3, 1996, the day the annual urs was to commence (traditionally on Magh Purnima), Dighe insisted on leading 20,000 Sainiks to the shrine to perform puja. Chief Minister Manohar Joshi along with Uddhav Thackeray, also attended the pooja that year and declared there that the Malang Hills would be developed into an all-religious shrine along the lines of Shirdi.
It is ironic that the opposition to the shrine come from Shiv Sena which constantly harks back to Maratha glory ... The shrine actually shot to prominence due to the Peshwas. The first Peshwa came to the dargah with offerings when he won his throne, as he attributed his victory to the dargah ... Till today the dargah is looked after by the Hindu family, whose forefathers are believed to have guarded the shrine at the time ... The way to the dargah is lined by temples of Shankar, Shiva and Ganesh. Hundreds of Sainiks led by Dighe were arrested later the same year for breaking the police cordon and insisting on carrying out pooja at a nearby Durga temple on Eid day, on April 29 ... The shrine, though usually deserted (attracts) Sainiks as visitors, twice a year, on the occasion of Eid, when the namaz is to be held at the dargah. (Source: The Communalism Combat, April, 1999)
