Judge: ‘Any Hanuman mandir is good enough’, no right to pray on Navy land

Thursday, 9 September 2010 By Legally India Bar, Bench & Litigation

The Bombay High Court said that the right to practice a religion did not guarantee the right to access public property to do so. The court said there was no need for the petitioner to visit a Hanuman temple in Mumbai’s Colaba district that lay on land restricted by the Navy for security reasons. “Why this particular temple? It means you want to create trouble,” said Justice Deshmukh according to the Indian Express. “There are many Hanuman temples. Any Hanuman mandir is good enough.” The petitioner’s lawyers unsuccessfully invoked article 25 of the Constitution giving the right to profess practise and propagate religion.

Full Indian Express article.

religion

Comments

sagnik 10 Sept 2010, 00:31
+0 -0
its great to see the Indian judiciary making strides in the right direction by administering justice even when the issue involves something as contentious as religion. sm agogo to see the political reaction to this verdict.
Anonymous guest 11 Sept 2010, 06:06
+0 -0
Would the honourable judge' opinion would have been the same had there been a mosque or the church ?
Anonymous guest 11 Sept 2010, 16:53
+0 -0
the judgment not only covers a hanuman temple but also a dargah. dont give religious colour to a judgment. the jdugment can be questioned on other grounds, save freedom of religion. it can also be said the court could have held the Navy has the duty or right to regulate the prayers in the temple and that it does not have the right to prohibit the prayers as a whole. more so, when prayers are permitted in the most contentious of disputes, ayodhya. but to give a communal color to the judgment is wholly unwarranted.
Anonymous guest 12 Sept 2010, 01:26
+0 -0
@2: The same judgement would have been given had there been a church but not in case of a mosque. in calcutta a church was demolished to make way for a flyover but an ILLEGAL mosque IN THE MIDDLE OF THE AIRPORT RUNWAY that is blocking airport modernisation remains untouched for the past 20 years.

and fyi i am a christian
Anonymous guest 13 Sept 2010, 15:36
+0 -0
#2, you are absolutely right. #3 is only trying to muddle the import of the judgment. The judgment may not expressly state that it does not apply to a mosque but yes, if it were right of the 'minority' community to access naval land to pray, then there would have been no restrictions. presumably we are a secular country so the majority has to bend over backwards. That is why even Manmohan Singh, a man who has an image of integrity, said "The minority communities now have the first right over resources".
Commenting is closed for this article.