Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, April 28, 2024

High Caste Priests Cannot Refuse To Perform Religious Ceremonies on Behalf of Lower Caste People: Uttarakhand High Court

Posted in: Civil Laws
Sun, Jul 22, 18, 21:23, 6 Years ago
star star star star star
5 out of 5 with 1 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 3936
Pukhraj v/s State of Uttarakhand warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar.

It has to be conceded with grace right at the very beginning that in a landmark judgment with far reaching consequences hugely uplifting the sagging morale of lower caste pilgrims, the Uttarakhand High Court just recently on 15 June, 2018 in Pukhraj & Others Versus State of Uttarakhand and other in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 199 of 2016 warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar. Very rightly so!

Deriding the system for its failure to protect the dignity, honour and human rights of persons belonging to lower castes, which has led to large-scale conversions, a Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court has directed the state to ensure there was no discrimination done by upper caste priests in refusing to perform puja and other rituals for those from lower castes. The Division Bench also ordered that “all persons, irrespective of their caste, are permitted to enter/visit any temple throughout the state without any discrimination.” This is truly commendable and must be implemented not just in Haridwar or Uttarakhand alone but should be extended uniformly in each and every part of India as early as possible!

Be it noted, the order was delivered almost a month ago in mid June but its official copy was released on July 12. It was further directed that “any properly trained and qualified person can be appointed as pujari irrespective of his/her caste in temples across the state.” The court in its ruling observed that “high caste priests were not accepting alms offered by pilgrims belonging to the lower caste.” This is just not acceptable and it was conveyed in no uncertain terms by the Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court which delivered this landmark ruling!

Needless to say, whenever the lower caste pilgrims face any discrimination at any place from now onwards, they can always cite this most commendable ruling which should be emulated not just by lower courts alone but also by all the high courts in India and even the Supreme Court also! It is a pathbreaking ruling which will always ensure that lower caste pilgrims don’t face any kind of discrimination in any place of worship! No wonder, it has grabbed news headlines all over!

Truth be told, the Bench of Uttarakhand High Court comprising of Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Lokpal Singh in no uncertain terms directed clearly and categorically that, “The High caste priests throughout the State of Uttarakhand shall not refuse to perform religious ceremonies/puja/rituals on behalf of the members belonging to lower castes in all the religious places/temples.” Now the high class priests have no option but to follow what has been so laudably laid down in this landmark judgment! No prizes for guessing that this landmark ruling has become a subject of discussion among all people of all categories and even newspaper headlines have not left it out!

For the uninitiated, it would be pertinent to mention here that the Uttarakhand High Court was hearing a petition (PIL) filed in 2016 by people belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, complaining about the shifting of the staircase over the Sant Ravidas temple at Har-ki-Pauri, Haridwar. The decision to shift the staircase was taken on complaints received by followers of Sant Ravidas, who were unhappy with the fact that the staircase covered the temple. The Court, however, noted that this staircase was near a Dharamshala situated in the close vicinity of the river Ganga, where the people from the petitioners’ community perform religious ceremonies. It, therefore, directed the State to consult with the members of this community before shifting the staircase. Very rightly so!

Not stopping here, the petitioners had further highlighted the rigid practice of untouchability in Haridwar. The petitioners had alleged that high caste priests in the city often refused to accept alms offered by pilgrims belonging to the lower caste or perform ceremonies on their behalf. Nothing can be more degrading for the lower caste people which can never be justified on any ground whatsoever!
To be sure, while strongly condemning and deprecating the reprehensible practice, the Uttarakhand High Court minced just no words in stating clearly that exclusion of people from temples only for the reason of them belonging to a lower caste is violative of Article 17 of the Constitution of India, which abolishes untouchability. How can this be permitted to continue with impunity on any ground? So what the Uttarakhand High Court ruled was the crying need of the hour and it didn’t err in doing so!

Simply put, Uttarakhand High Court sent across a clear and categorical message that, “High caste priests cannot refuse to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of the persons belonging to lower caste. The exclusion of persons from temples open to worship to the Hindu public at large, only on the pretext that they belong to the excluded community, is violative of Article 17 of the Constitution of India. Every person to whatsoever caste he/she belongs has a right to visit/enter the temple and worship and perform religious ceremonies/rituals.” Most certainly, this land mark ruling will ensure from now onwards that the pilgrims belonging to lower castes are not discriminated against and treated on an equal footing with others. This is certainly a historic feat for which both Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Lokpal Singh who delivered this landmark judgment must be applauded as it is they who have made possible what was earlier considered as impossible for lower caste pilgrims to achieve!

Having said this, it must also be pointed out here that during the hearing, the Court’s attention was also drawn to the large-scale encroachments on the banks of the river Ganga. The Court after taking note of all such concerns and after thoroughly deliberating on it issued landmark directions as mentioned in Para 30 of this landmark judgment. Para 30 reads thus: “Accordingly, in the larger public interest, as an interim measure, the following directions are issued to the District Administration to maintain the purity and sanctity of river Ganges and the Ghats at Haridwar and also for resolving the issue of the staircase and for the removal of encroachment and un-authorized construction in the town of Haridwar and also to remove social evils prevailing in the system: -

Meeting with SC/ST Community before shifting the staircase
A. The District administration is directed to hold parleys with the respondent no. 3 and respectable members of SC/ST community before shifting the staircase from present place to maintain peace and harmony.

Removal of encroachments
B. The District administration is directed to remove all the encroachment made on both the banks of river Ganges as well as public roads and public paths in Haridwar town by issuing four weeks’ notice to the occupants who have encroached upon the government land/forest land and two weeks’ notice to the persons, who have encroached upon the public roads/public paths by permitting them to establish their possession on the encroached land/unauthorised construction by way of sale-deed or any order passed by the Competent Authority in their favour putting them into possession of the property. Special drive be launched to evict the unauthorised occupants near Chandi ghat/Chandi bridge opposite V.I.P. ghat.

Warning against discrimination
C. The High caste priests throughout the State of Uttarakhand shall not refuse to perform religious ceremonies/puja/rituals on behalf of the members belonging to lower castes in all the religious places/temples. All the persons, irrespective of their caste are permitted to enter/visit any temple throughout the State of Uttarakhand without any discrimination in the spirit of Articles 14, 15(2), 17, 19, 21, 25, 29(2), 38, 46 and 51-A of the Constitution of India. It is made clear that any properly trained and qualified person can be appointed as Poojari irrespective off his caste in the temples, as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Maintenance of cleanliness
D. The District Magistrate, Haridwar shall ensure cleanliness and maintaining hygienic conditions on all the ghats in Haridwar.

E. The Commissioner Garhwal Division is directed to hold inquiry against the officers/officials who have permitted the encroachment on the Government land/public land/public roads within a period of ten weeks from today.

F. The District administration shall install nets at Subhash Ghat and Tulsi Ghat to collect trash/garbage from the river and dispose the same in a scientific manner.
Beautification of temple

G. Since there is only one temple of Lord Ravi Das near the Har-ki-Pauri, the State Government is directed to take all necessary steps to beautify the temple and its surroundings after holding consultation with respondent no. 3 and respected members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
All said and done, it is a landmark ruling which treats lower caste pilgrims on the same footing as higher caste pilgrims. It enjoins upon priests of higher class not to perpetuate any kind of discrimination against them on any ground whatsoever and also not to refuse to perform religious ceremonies on their behalf. It also issues landmark directives to ensure that purity and sanctity of the river Ganges and the Ghats at Haridwar is maintained and also the issue of staircase is resolved and the encroachment is removed and also unauthorized construction in the town of Haridwar and also to remove social evils prevailing in the system.
on a concluding note, it must be said with certitude that the crying need of the hour now is to ensure its swift and strict implementation if this landmark judgment is to be rendered really effective on ground! It brooks no more delay now of any kind! All kinds of discrimination against lower caste pilgrims must come to an end forthwith as ordered by the Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Present space law framework in the country. Space has heightened the curiosity of mankind for centuries. Due to the advancement in technology, there is fierce competition amongst nations for the next space war.
The scope of Section 151 CPC has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
Co-operative Societies are governed by the Central Co-operative Societies Act 1912, where there is no State Act. In West Bengal they were governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act
Registration enables an NGO to be a transparent in its operations to the Government, Donors, to its members and to its urgent community.
The ingredients of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
Drafting of legal Agreements and Deeds in India
ST Land rules in India,West Bengal
The paper will discuss about the provisions related to liquidated damages. How the law has evolved. Difference between the provisions of England and India.
A privilege may not be a right, but, under the constitution of the country, I do not gather that any broad distinction is drawn between the rights and the privileges that were enjoyed and that were taken away.
It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority
This article aims to define delay in civil suits. It finds the general as well as specific causes leading to pendency of civil suits and over-burdening of courts. This articles suggests some solutions which are pragmatic as well as effective to reduce the burden of the courts and speed up the civil judicial process.
This article deals with importance, needs, highlights and provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2016, which is passed by the lok sabha on 19th December 2018 .
Cross Examination In Case of Injunction Suits, Injunctions are governed by Sections 37, 38, 39 to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act.
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v Gujarat inability of a person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction..
Dr.Ashok Khemka V/s Haryana upheld the integrity of eminent IAS officer because of his upright and impeccable credentials has emerged as an eyesore for politicians of all hues but also very rightly expunged Haryana Chief Minister ML Khattar adverse remarks in his Personal Appraisal Report
State of Rajasthan and others v. Mukesh Sharma has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson the Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities.
The Commissioner of Police v/s Devender Anand held that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law.
Rajasthan Vs Shiv Dayal High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable.
Complete Guide to Pleadings in India, get your Written statement and Plaint Drafted by highly qualified lawyers at reasonable rate.
Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs UP imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality.
Rajasthan v/s Shri Ramesh Chandra Mundra that institutional independence, financial autonomy is integral to independence of judiciary. directing the Rajasthan Government to reconsider the two decade old proposal of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to upgrade 16 posts of its Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries
The Indian Contract act, 1872 necessities significant consideration in a few of its areas. One such area of the Indian Contract act of 1872 is where if any person finds a lost good belonging to others and takes them into his custody acts as the bailee to the owner of the good.
Government has notified 63 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 including the ones dealing with enhanced penalties
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situated outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales rejecting rightly Pakistan's frivolous claims and ruling explicitly that the VII Nizam of Hyderabad's descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from Londons National Westminster Bank.
Power of Attorney and the Specific Relief Act, 1963
air pollution in Delhi and even adjoining regions like several districts of West UP are crossing all limits and this year even in districts adjoining Delhi like Meerut where air pollution was never felt so much as is now being felt.
Dr Syed Afzal (Dead) v/sRubina Syed Faizuddin that the Civil Courts while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side, interim mandatory injunctions can be granted after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.
students of Banaras Hindu University's (BHU's) Sanskrit Vedvigyan Sankay (SVDVS) went on strike demanding the cancellation of the appointment of Assistant Professor Feroze Khan and transfer him to another faculty.
Odisha Development Corporation Ltd Vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. the time tested maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which in simple and straight language means that, No party should suffer due to the act of Court.
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd v/s. State of U.P that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing. In other words, the Apex Court reiterated the supreme importance of the legal maxim and latin phrase titled Audi alteram partem
Ram Murti Yadav v/s State of Uttar Pradesh the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict, that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function.
Judicial Officers Being Made Scapegoats And Penalized By Inconvenient Transfers And Otherwise: SC
Desh Raj v/s Balkishan that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. In non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits.
M/S Granules India Ltd. Vs UOI State, as a litigant, cannot behave as a private litigant, and it has solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice.
To exercise one's own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others.
Today, you have numerous traffic laws as well as cases of traffic violations. People know about safe driving yet they end up defying the safety guidelines. It could be anything like driving while talking on the phone, hit and run incidents, or driving under the influence of alcohol.
The legal processes are uncertain. Also, there are times when justice gets denied, and the legal outcomes get delayed. Hence, nobody wants to see themselves or their loved one end up in jail.
Arun Kumar Gupta v/s Jharkhand that judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. The law pertaining to the vital subject of compulsory retirement of judicial officers have thus been summed up in this noteworthy judgment.
Online Contracts or Digital Agreements are contracts created and signed over the internet. Also known as e-contracts or electronic contracts, these contracts are a more convenient and faster way of creating and signing contracts for individuals, institutions and corporate.
Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers has asked Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending stranded migrant workers to their native places.
Gerald Lynn Bostock v/s Clayton County, Georgia that employees cannot be fired from the jobs merely because of their transgender and homosexual identity.
This article compares two cases with similar facts, yet different outcomes and examines the reasons for the same. It revolves around consideration and validation of contracts.
Odisha Vikas Parishad vs Union Of India while modifying the absolute stay on conducting the Jagannath Rath Yatra at Puri has allowed it observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
Soni Beniwal v/s Uttarakhand even if there is a bar on certain matters to be taken as PIL, there is always discretion available with the Court to do so in exercise of its inherent powers.
Indian Contract Act was commenced in the year 1872 and since then, several deductions and additions have happened to the same. The following piece of work discusses about the concept of offer under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Top