Supreme Court Directs Preservation of Mahakaleshwar Jyotirlinga: Sarika vs. Administrator (2 May 2018)

LEGAL ISSUE: Preservation of a religious shrine and balancing religious practices with conservation.

CASE TYPE: Civil

Case Name: Sarika vs. Administrator, Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain (M.P.) & Ors.

Judgment Date: 2 May 2018

Date of the Judgment: 2 May 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 404

Judges: Arun Mishra J., Uday Umesh Lalit J.

Can the traditions and rituals of an ancient temple be modified to preserve its core deity? The Supreme Court of India recently grappled with this question in a case concerning the famous Mahakaleshwar Jyotirlinga in Ujjain. The court’s judgment highlights the delicate balance between religious freedom and the need to protect national heritage. This case delves into the heart of how a balance can be struck between traditional practices and the preservation of a site of immense religious and cultural importance.

Case Background

The case revolves around the Mahakaleshwar Temple, an ancient shrine dedicated to Lord Shiva in Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh. The temple houses one of the twelve Jyotirlingas, considered sacred by Hindus. The judgment discusses the Lingam’s history, tracing its origins back to Vedic times and its evolution through various scriptures. The Lingam is considered a symbol of ultimate power, worshipped in both idol and phallic forms.

The core issue arose due to the deterioration of the Jyotirlinga. Reports indicated that the Lingam was eroding due to various ritualistic practices, including the use of impure puja materials like sugar, ghee, milk, and curd. The continuous touching, rubbing, and application of these materials were causing damage to the ancient stone structure. The appellant, concerned about the Lingam’s preservation, sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to protect the shrine.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case initially began in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. A single bench of the High Court passed an order in favor of the petitioner, which was later overturned by a division bench. This led to an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, recognizing the importance of the matter, constituted an Expert Committee comprising members from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Geological Survey of India (GSI). This committee was tasked with studying the Lingam, assessing the extent of its deterioration, and suggesting remedial measures.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several constitutional provisions in its judgment:

• Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution: These articles guarantee the freedom of religion, ensuring every person’s right to practice and propagate their faith subject to public order, health, and morality.
• Article 49 of the Constitution: This article mentions the duty of the state to protect monuments and places of national importance.
• Article 51A of the Constitution: This article outlines the fundamental duties of every citizen, including the duty to promote harmony and preserve the rich heritage of India. Specifically, clauses (a), (e), (f), and (j) were highlighted:
  • (a) To abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions.
  • (e) To promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood.
  • (f) To value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.
  • (j) To strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity.

The Court also referred to previous judgments, emphasizing the importance of moral values in a secular society and the need to respect all religions. The Court noted that while religion is a matter of faith, it also includes practices and rituals that are integral to it. However, the administration of religious properties is not considered a matter of religion itself.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court highlighted the following points:

• The Temple Committee submitted that they are taking all necessary steps to protect the Shivlinga. They proposed to use high-quality milk, prepare Panchamrut by themselves, and ensure that pure worship materials are available. They also suggested cleaning the Jalpatra (water gate) daily with hot water and to have a big garland on the Jyotirling to avoid direct contact with water, milk etc.
• The Temple Committee also submitted that they are taking steps to protect the Shivlinga. They sought a report from the Department of Geology, Vikram University, Ujjain. They constituted a sub-committee to discuss the issue of corrosion and explore remedial measures.
• The Temple Committee proposed to use high-quality milk, prepare Panchamrut themselves, and provide pure worship materials. They also suggested cleaning the Jalpatra daily with hot water and having a garland on the Jyotirling to avoid direct contact with water and milk.
• The appellant argued that the deterioration of the Jyotirlinga was a serious issue, and the proposed measures were not sufficient to stop the erosion. They also requested the appointment of an expert committee to look into the matter.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

• What measures are required to stop the deterioration/shrinkage of the Lingam?
• What steps are required to be taken to improve the entire premises and for its preservation?
• How much deterioration of Lingam has taken place during the last three-four decades?
• What remedial steps have to be taken?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the reports of the expert committees and the submissions of the parties, disposed of the appeal with several directions.

The Court emphasized that while it respects religious practices, it also has a duty to protect national heritage. The Court noted that it is not within its jurisdiction to interfere with religious practices, but it must ensure that such practices do not cause harm to the deity. The Court clarified that it had not issued any directions on the rituals themselves, but only on the measures to preserve the Lingam.

The Court also observed that there was misreporting of the Court’s orders and cautioned the parties against any such misrepresentation.

The Court’s reasoning included:

• The need to balance religious freedom with the duty to preserve cultural heritage as per the Constitution.
• The importance of moral values in a secular society and the need to respect all religions.
• The fact that while religion is a matter of faith, it also includes practices and rituals that are integral to it.
• The need to ensure that the administration of religious properties is not considered a matter of religion itself.

The Court directed the Temple Committee to implement the recommendations of the Expert Committee, focusing on regulating the use of offerings and improving the quality of materials.

The Court also observed that there was misreporting of the Court’s orders and cautioned the parties against any such misrepresentation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, primarily the need to balance religious practices with the preservation of a national heritage site. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the Jyotirlinga from further deterioration while respecting the religious sentiments of the devotees. The Court also considered the expert reports, which provided scientific evidence of the damage caused by certain practices.

The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual findings (the extent of deterioration and the impact of certain practices) and legal principles (constitutional duties and rights).

Logical Reasoning

The following flowchart demonstrates the court’s logical reasoning for the issue:

The Court also considered alternative interpretations, such as completely banning certain rituals, but ultimately rejected them in favor of a balanced approach that respects tradition while ensuring preservation.

The final decision was reached by considering the expert reports, the constitutional duties, and the need to protect the religious sentiments of the devotees.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• To protect the Jyotirlinga from further deterioration.
• To balance religious practices with the need to preserve national heritage.
• To ensure that the rituals are performed with pure materials and in a manner that does not harm the deity.
• To respect the religious sentiments of the devotees while ensuring the preservation of the Lingam.
• To create a sustainable plan for the long-term maintenance of the temple and its deity.

The judgment was a unanimous decision by both judges.

The Court’s decision has potential implications for future cases involving religious sites and the need for their preservation. It sets a precedent for balancing traditional practices with modern conservation efforts.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reiterated the existing constitutional duties and rights.

Key Takeaways

The key practical implications of this judgment are:

• Religious institutions must ensure that their practices do not harm the deity or the place of worship.
• There is a need to balance religious freedom with the duty to preserve cultural heritage.
• Temple committees and other stakeholders should take proactive steps to ensure the use of pure and unadulterated materials in religious rituals.
• The use of modern technology and scientific knowledge can help in preserving ancient sites.
• The government has a crucial role in providing necessary infrastructure and support for the preservation of religious sites.

The judgment emphasizes the need for responsible religious practices and the importance of preserving cultural heritage for future generations. It sets a precedent for how religious institutions and the government can work together to protect sites of religious and cultural significance.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The Temple Committee was directed to implement the recommendations of the Expert Committee.
• The Temple Committee was directed to regulate the timings of the rituals.
• The Temple Committee was directed to use an RO plant to maintain the pH value of water at 7.
• The Temple Committee was directed to ensure that the Lingam is cleaned and dried after Jalabhishek.
• The Temple Committee was directed to minimize the use of milk, curd, ghee, and honey.
• The Temple Committee was directed to ban the rubbing of sugar powder on the Lingam.
• The Temple Committee was directed to improve the drainage system and ensure proper disposal of waste.
• The Temple Committee was directed to create a Heritage Cell for maintenance and restoration.
• The Temple Committee was directed to take steps to ensure the safety of devotees during Nagpanchami.
• The ASI and GSI teams were directed to revisit the temple in January 2019 and submit a report on the implementation of the suggested measures.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while religious practices are protected under the Constitution, they must be balanced with the need to preserve and protect national heritage. The Court reiterated the importance of a secular society where moral values are upheld and the rights of all are respected.

This judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but reinforces the existing constitutional provisions and the need for a balanced approach when dealing with matters of religion and heritage.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Sarika vs. Administrator case is a significant step towards balancing religious practices with the preservation of cultural heritage. The Court’s directives to the Temple Committee emphasize the need for responsible management of religious sites and the importance of protecting national treasures for future generations. The judgment serves as a reminder that while religious freedom is a fundamental right, it must be exercised in a manner that does not cause harm to the deity or the place of worship.