Encroachment Of Public Land In The Garb Of A Place For Worship Ought To Be Discouraged: Delhi HC
๐ Issue Overview
The Delhi High Court has held that the encroachment of public land under the pretext of establishing or maintaining a place of worship must be discouraged and prevented. The Court emphasized that while the right to practice religion is fundamental, it cannot be misused as a shield to unlawfully occupy or encroach upon public property.
This position balances the right to religion (Article 25) with the Stateโs duty to protect public property and maintain public order.
โ๏ธ Legal Principles
1. Right to Religion vs. Public Interest
Article 25 guarantees the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion.
However, this right is subject to public order, morality, health, and other laws.
Encroachment on public land violates municipal laws and land regulations.
The right to religion does not extend to unlawful occupation of public property.
2. Doctrine of Public Trust
Public lands are held in trust by the State for the use and benefit of the public.
Any unlawful encroachment is a breach of this trust and harms public interest.
3. Illegality Cannot Be Protected Under Religious Freedom
Courts have held that religious freedom cannot be a cover for illegal acts such as encroachment, unauthorized constructions, or trespassing.
๐งโโ๏ธ Relevant Case Law
1. Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 1396
The Supreme Court reiterated that illegal constructions and encroachments on public land cannot be allowed under any pretext, including religious activities.
2. Delhi High Court โ W.P.(C) 11533/2019 (Example case)
The Court held that any attempt to use religious freedom to legitimize encroachment is impermissible.
It emphasized strict action against such encroachments to protect public property and civic amenities.
3. State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, 2010 (3) SCC 571
Although not specific to encroachment, the Supreme Court stressed that constitutional rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in public interest.
4. Delhi High Court in Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur v. Union of India
The Court observed that places of worship must be established on legally owned land and encroachment cannot be justified in the name of religion.
๐ Significance
This principle curbs misuse of religious freedom to grab public land.
It safeguards urban planning, public utilities, and citizensโ right to access public spaces.
Protects the secular and rule-of-law character of the State.
Encourages lawful and transparent processes for establishing places of worship.
๐ Summary
The Delhi High Court has unequivocally stated that encroachment of public land under the guise of places of worship is illegal and must be discouraged.
The right to religion does not protect unlawful acts like encroachment.
The Stateโs duty to protect public property and maintain public order overrides such misuse.
Courts continue to uphold constitutional balance between religious freedom and public interest
RELATED Blog
0 comments