Introduction:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in Sunil Kumar v. Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority (CWP No. 9804 of 2023), reaffirmed that religious sentiments cannot be invoked to justify unlawful obstruction of public property or interfere with the legal rights of citizens. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that while religious places deserve protection and respect, no person can take the law into their own hands under the guise of safeguarding religious interests. The Court observed that religion cannot be used as a means to defeat the rule of law or obstruct another person’s lawful access to property.
The case arose from a dispute concerning an iron gate erected on a public road constructed by the Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority (BBNDA) over Government land in Solan district. The road provided access both to a Shiv Temple and to the petitioner’s private property. The petitioner, Sunil Kumar, alleged that the unauthorized gate frequently remained locked, preventing him from reaching his land and causing repeated inconvenience.
Earlier, the BBNDA had initiated proceedings under Sections 38 and 39 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, and directed removal of the gate from its existing location while permitting its installation near the temple premises. However, this order was subsequently withdrawn, prompting the petitioner to challenge the withdrawal before the High Court through a writ petition.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner submitted that the disputed road was constructed on Government land and was intended for public use. It was argued that the iron gate had been installed without any legal authority approximately 300 metres before the Shiv Temple, resulting in repeated obstruction of his access to his agricultural land. According to the petitioner, the gate remained locked on several occasions, forcing him to face unnecessary hardship despite having a lawful right to use the public pathway.
The petitioner further contended that the BBNDA had initially recognized the illegality by directing removal of the gate under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act. However, the subsequent withdrawal of that order was arbitrary and contrary to law, allowing an unauthorized obstruction to continue on Government property.
The respondents defended the installation by emphasizing the need to safeguard the temple premises and maintain security. During the proceedings, it was suggested that the gate was intended to protect the religious place and regulate access to the temple area. A committee constituted under the directions of the High Court later recommended that while the gate structure could remain, its shutters should either be permanently removed or kept open so that public movement was not obstructed.
Court’s Judgment:
Allowing the writ petition, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the unauthorized gate erected on Government land could not be permitted to interfere with the petitioner’s legal right of access. The Court found it undisputed that the road belonged to the Government and that the gate had been installed without any statutory authorization.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua observed that although the dispute involved access to a temple, religious considerations could not override the rule of law. The Court categorically held that no individual or group has the authority to obstruct a public pathway merely by invoking religious sentiments. It emphasized that religion cannot become a shield for violating legal rights or circumventing established legal procedures.
The Court encouraged the parties to resolve the dispute amicably but clarified that such settlement could never come at the cost of the rule of law. It observed that authorities must ensure that no one takes the law into their own hands under the pretext of protecting religious sentiments.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the High Court had directed the constitution of a committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, to inspect the site and suggest an appropriate solution. After examining the location, the committee recommended that while the gate structure could remain, its shutters should either be removed or permanently kept open to guarantee uninterrupted public access.
The Court examined this recommendation alongside the earlier order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the BBNDA. It found that the original administrative order directing removal of the gate from its existing location and permitting its installation closer to the temple was fair, reasonable, and legally justified. According to the Court, that arrangement adequately balanced the legitimate concern of protecting the temple with the equally important right of the petitioner to access his property without obstruction.
The High Court observed that the petitioner’s land was situated before the temple and that the gate repeatedly prevented him from exercising his lawful right of passage. Since the obstruction existed on Government land without authorization, its continuation could not be legally sustained.
Reiterating the supremacy of the rule of law, the Court held that public pathways cannot be obstructed in the name of religion or personal belief. Administrative authorities are under a duty to protect public property and ensure that no unauthorized structures interfere with the rights of citizens.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and restored the legality of the earlier administrative action directing removal of the unauthorized gate from its existing location. The judgment serves as an important reminder that while religious institutions deserve respect, they cannot be used to justify illegal occupation of public land or denial of lawful access to others. The decision reinforces the constitutional principle that religious sentiments must always operate within the framework of law and cannot override statutory rights or public interest.