A court in Jammu and Kashmir recently ordered a self-styled godman to pay ₹49,000 as compensation for filing a frivolous criminal complaint on allegations that Hindu rituals were not correctly performed at a temple [Sita Ram Dass Guru Awadh Bihari Dass v. Bishan Dass and Others].

The godman's refusal to pay the compensation amount and his decision to skip a subsequent court hearing also led the court to order that he be sent to jail for 30 days.

"This Court is left with no other option but to send the complainant Baba Sita Ram Dass to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days from today till 7th July, 2026 to be lodged at District Jail, Udhampur," the order passed on June 8 by District Judicial Mobile Magistrate Rishabh Koushal said.

The judge clarified that he can avoid the prison time if he agrees to deposit the compensation he was earlier ordered to pay.

The Rajasthan-based godman had filed a complaint alleging that certain idols and Shivlings at a temple had not been installed in accordance with what he claimed were proper Hindu customs and rituals. He asserted that two Shivlings could not be installed under one tree, that certain idols were not placed properly and that religious ceremonies and rituals were conducted incorrectly by the temple management.

He further claimed that he was earlier engaged to be a caretaker at the temple, but was not given the salary promised to him. According to him, he was paid only ₹1,700 despite being promised remuneration.

The court, however, found several flaws in the complaint, including that irrelevant provisions were invoked over alleged incidents that dated back to 2017. The complaint filed in 2026 over incidents from 2017 was barred by limitation, the court pointed out.

It added that even if the godman's allegations were taken to be true, it did not disclose any crime.

“The criminal law cannot be invoked for enforcing a particular interpretation of religious rituals, customs or beliefs especially when there is no allegation of deliberate or malicious intent to insult or outrage religious feelings."

It concluded that the complainant was trying to enforce his personal religious views upon others through the machinery of criminal justice.

"Mere non-adherence to a particular mode of worship or ritual advocated by the complainant does not constitute a criminal offence," it held.

The law does not recognise any individual’s personal interpretation of religious practices as binding on others merely because that individual claims religious authority or expertise, the court added.

Additionally, the court noted that the godman appeared to have filed the criminal complaint only as a pressure tactic to settle a civil dispute over a failure to pay his salary.

The court concluded that the complaint was false, frivolous, vexatious and instituted without reasonable cause. It ordered the godman to pay compensation to the temple committee members whom he had harassed by filing such a frivolous complaint.

The godman failed to give any satisfactory reply to resist such a measure. He claimed to be a preacher who was only trying to protect the Hindu religion. The court rejected this explanation, adding that Hinduism was neither weak nor fragile enough to require frivolous criminal litigation for its protection.

"The complainant cannot be allowed to impose his own religious diktats upon the others in a pluralistic society like India where Constitution guarantees its citizens to profess, practice and propagate the religion according to their wishes subject to limitations of law which complainant has failed to demonstrate."

Therefore, he was ordered to pay ₹7,000 each to 7 temple committee members who contested the complaint, bringing the total compensation payable by the complainant to ₹49,000.

He later failed to pay the compensation. He also skipped the ensuring June 5 hearing and sent his lawyer to seek a deferment.

The court took a dim view of this turn of events and decided to impose a 30-day imprisonment term for failing to pay the court-ordered compensation, under Section 273 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). An arrest warrant was also issued.

"The complainant not only subjected multiple persons to unnecessary litigation but also consumed valuable judicial time and resources which could otherwise have been devoted to genuine disputes pending adjudication before this Court," the June 5 order said.

The police subsequently arrested him and produced him before the court on June 8, when he was ordered to be sent to the district prison for 30 days if he continued refusing to pay the compensation amount.

The complainant was represented by Advocate Sanjeet Kumar Bavoria, while the contesting temple committee members were represented by Advocate Yog Raj Sharma.

[Read Orders]