LexALL INDIA DEMOCRATIC WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION AND JANWADI SAMITI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
ALL INDIA DEMOCRATIC WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION AND
~
JANWADI SAMIT!
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
MARCH 17, 1989
B
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHAL!AH, JJ.]
y
Commission ofSati (Prevention) Act, 1987: Chunri Ceremony-
\
Whether glorification of Sati-Maintenance of Sati temple and support
to social institutions of utility out of income earned pending determina-
.,.
c lion-Permissibility of.
By an ex-pa rte order made in the writ petition on 9th September,
-'f
1988, the Court prohibited respondent No. 2, the management of the
Sri Rani Satiji's Mandir, from performing Chunri ceremony within the
temple and directed the entire collection of money to be separately
D accounted for and deposited into a nationalised bank.
In this miscellaneous petition, the management sought vacation of
the ad interim order and for a direction to the authorities not to in-
terfere in the matter of collection of money as also articles of gold and +
silver of deities.
E
Disposing of the miscellaneous petition, the Court,
Ordered:
1. The restraint imposed on holding the Chunri ceremony within "
F
the temple should continue without any variation. [68G-H]
•·
2.1 Pending disposal of the writ petition, the temple complex has
to be maintained. Therefore, out of the income earned maintenance
expenses must be met. [69A]
G
2.2 If out of the income of this institution any cont;>ihution was
.\
being made to sustain some social institutions of utility, the support
should not die out. [69B-C]
2.3 The respondent No. 2 is free to move the District Magistrate
in regard to these two aspects and in case the latter is satisfied that
H appropriate funds should be released out of the deposits in the bank for
66
JANWADJ SAMIT! v. U.0.1.
67
~ one or both of the ;ibove said purposes, he would be free to make an
A
appropriate order in respect thereof. [69C]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Misc. Petition No. 28180
of 1988.
IN
B
•
-I
~
Writ Petition No. 913 of 1988
{Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
..
Mrs. K. Hingorani and Ms. Santosh Singh for the Petitioner.
c
y
A.K. Sen (Not Present), Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Vivek Gambhir,
Parveen Kumar and B.D. Sharma for the Respondents.
S.P. Singh for the Impleading party.
D
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
ORDER
.~·
This Court on 9. 9 .1988 after hearing counsel for the petitioners
in the writ petition made an ex parte order to the following effect:
E
.....;.
"Issue notice returnable on Tuesday, the 13th Sep-
!ember, 1988. In view of the allegations made in Pargraph 4
of the affidavit given by Vi jay Trivedi, the Respondent No.
'\l
2 is prohibited from performing any Chunri Ceremony
within Sri Rani Satiji's Mandir and the respondents are
F
•
directed to enforce this order on the 10th September, 1988
and on any other occasion thereafter until further orders.
The entire collection of money shall be separately accoun-
ted for and should be deposited into a nationalised bank, so
that appropriate directions after hearing both the parties
I
may be made by this Court in regard to the same ..... "
G
On 10th of September, 1988, the annual Satiji Mela was scheduled to
be celebrated within the said temple premises.
The management of the temple, respondent No. 2, in the writ
petition has now applied for vacating the ad interim order and for a H
68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1989) 2 S.C.R.
A
direction to the District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu to return the keys of J.
the Bhetpatras of the temple and the boxes containing the articles of
gold and silver and also for a direction to him not to interfere in the
matter of collection of money as also collection of articles of gold and
silver of deities located in the premises of the temple and to make such
B
other orders as may be necessary to meet the situation.
We have heard Dr. Singhvi in support of the petition, Mrs. Hing-
r
orani for the petitioners in the writ petition asking for sustaining the
~
interim order and Mr. Sharma for the State of Rajasthan. An affidavit
has been filed by the District Magistrate of Jhunjhunu in the course of
,..
hearing which has also been placed before us.
c
Broadly two aspects require consideration: (1) whether the
'Chunry' ceremony should be permitted to be performed within the
)'.
temple and (2) whether out of the amounts which are being deposited
in the nationalised bank in terms of the interim order, the expenses for
D
maintenance of the teExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.