Supreme Court on Shiv Mandir Demolition

Refuses Stay on Demolition

The Supreme Court of India has refused to stay the demolition of the Pracheen Shiv Mandir located on the Yamuna flood plains, questioning the authenticity of the temple's historical claims. This decision was made despite a petition seeking to halt the demolition, citing the temple's religious significance and frequent visits by devotees.

Background of the Case

The Pracheen Shiv Mandir, situated near Taj Enclave in Geeta Colony, has been a subject of controversy due to its location on the Yamuna flood plains. The Delhi High Court had earlier ordered the demolition of the temple, stating that it was built in an unauthorized manner on land meant for public use and environmental preservation.

Court's Decision

The Supreme Court bench, led by Justice Dharmesh Sharma, emphasized that the temple had no documented historical significance and that the petitioner society failed to demonstrate any legal rights to the land. The court noted, “Lord Shiva does not need our protection; rather, we, the people, seek his protection and blessings. Clearing the flood plains of encroachments would be more beneficial.”

• The petitioner's plea to include Lord Shiva as a party in the case was dismissed as a desperate attempt to divert the issue.
• The court directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to facilitate the relocation of the temple's idols within 15 days.
• The bench highlighted the environmental importance of clearing the Yamuna flood plains from unauthorized constructions.

Reactions and Implications

This decision has significant implications for other unauthorized constructions on the Yamuna flood plains. Environmentalists have welcomed the ruling, viewing it as a step towards restoring the ecological balance of the area. However, supporters of the temple have expressed disappointment, citing the loss of a place of worship and community gathering.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's refusal to stay the demolition of the Pracheen Shiv Mandir underscores the judiciary's commitment to environmental preservation while balancing religious sentiments. This case sets a precedent for future disputes involving unauthorized constructions on ecologically sensitive areas.