'Can't run law classes here': Delhi High Court refuses to entertain PIL over Jhandewalan temple restrictions

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging alleged restrictions imposed by the Jhandewalan temple management on the devotees' access to the temple's deity.

A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that the petition was not maintainable under its writ jurisdiction. The Court observed that the appropriate remedy would be to file a civil suit.

The Court repeatedly explained to the petitioner that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could ordinarily be maintained against the State or authorities performing a public duty, which did not include the temple society.

"Bhai ham aapko samjha nhi sakte (Brother, we cannot make you understand). A writ can be issued only against State. It can also be issued to an authority which is not state but still can be amenable to writ jurisdiction, or to an authority performing public function. A temple society is not performing public duty," observed Chief Justice Upadhyaya.

During the hearing, the Court questioned whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to the temple society.

The petitioner argued that the temple was a public place and that the society managed its affairs. He also submitted that he had been visiting the temple since childhood and that the management had recently imposed restrictions preventing most devotees from having a proper darshan of the deity.

The petitioner contended that while some individuals were being allowed access, most devotees were not, thereby violating their rights to equality and freedom of religion.

The Court, however, rejected the argument that merely managing a public place amounted to performing a public function.

"They are performing public function by organising temple? That way a shopkeeper will also perform a public function," remarked Chief Justice Upadhyaya.

Advising the petitioner, the Court suggested that if he had grievances regarding the management of the temple, he could institute a civil suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (public charities).

As the petitioner continued to press his submissions, Chief Justice Upadhyaya said,

"My difficulty is I can't run law classes here. Aap samajhiye (please understand) Sharma ji (petitioner) please. There is a difference between a public place and a public function. Public function and public duty has nothing to do with these activities."

Following the Court's observations, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the PIL.

The PIL was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.