The Bombay High Court on Tuesday directed the Maharashtra government to file its reply in a plea urging the State to reopen temples during lockdown.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Revati Mohite-Dere was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by an NGO, Association For Aiding Justice, seeking direction to authorities to take immediate effective steps to ensure that places of worship are opened for devotees with guidelines.
The PIL seeks to permit Jain temples to be opened during period of Paryushana Parva with necessary safety precautions i.e. social distancing, restricting timing for devotees, restricting number of devotees at one time within temple premises. The PIL also seeks direction to authorities to permit Jain temples to open and conduct Samvatsari (yearly) Pratikraman, which falls on last day of Paryushana Parva, with the necessary precautions by allotting different time slots for the Pratikraman i.e. social distancing, restricting timing for devotees, restricting number of devotees at one time within temple premises, ensuring different time slot for Samvatsari (yearly) Pratikraman, etc.”
Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni told the court that on August 12, the State had filed a reply in similar matter before another Division Bench, saying it did not intend to open any place of worship currently as it would pose a risk of spread of coronavirus.
With respect to the petition seeking Jain temples to be open for their on going festival Paryushan, that ends on August 23, he said the State maintained the same stand on any place of worship, “irrespective of its religion.”
Advocate Dipesh Siroya representing the trust said the Tirupati temple in Andhra Pradesh has been opened for all devotees despite the COVID-19 pandemic. “The Tirupati temple is much larger than any of the temples in Maharashtra and receives a large number of devotees. Still it has been opened for public. Maharashtra can also frame guidelines to open temples and regulate devotees entering them,” he said.
The court directed the State to file a reply on this in 10 days and adjourned the matter to be heard on September 4.
