The Delhi High Court, in a recent ruling, declined to address a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that questioned the alleged restrictions imposed by the Jhandewalan temple management on devotees’ access to the temple deity. The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, ruled that the petition did not fall under its writ jurisdiction.
During the proceedings, the Court clarified that the proper course of action for the petitioner would be to file a civil suit. It was emphasized that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is typically applicable against the State or entities performing public duties, which does not encompass private temple societies.
Chief Justice Upadhyaya explained, “A writ can be issued only against the State or an authority amenable to writ jurisdiction, or an authority performing a public function. A temple society does not fulfill these criteria.”
The court’s deliberation also included a discussion on whether a writ of mandamus could be directed at the temple society. The petitioner argued that the temple’s public nature and society’s management role justified the PIL. He stated that he had visited the temple since childhood and that recent management decisions obstructed most devotees from properly viewing the deity.
Despite these arguments, the Court maintained that merely managing a public space does not equate to performing a public function. Chief Justice Upadhyaya remarked, “If managing a temple is a public function, then a shopkeeper would also be performing a public function.”
More Read
Advising on alternative legal remedies, the Court suggested the petitioner could pursue a civil suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, which pertains to public charities, if he had complaints about the temple’s management.
As the petitioner persisted with his submissions, Chief Justice Upadhyaya stated, “My difficulty is I can’t run law classes here. Please understand, there is a difference between a public place and a public function. These activities do not constitute a public duty.”
Subsequent to these observations, the petitioner requested to withdraw the PIL. The Court granted this request, and the PIL was dismissed as withdrawn.
