ORDER

The issue of public importance highlighted in this petition relates to the difficulties faced by the visitors to Shri Jagannath Temple at Puri, and their harassment or exploitation by the Sevaks of the temple. It is also pointed out that the environment of the surroundings is not hygienic as it ought to be. There are encroachments. It is also mentioned that there are deficiencies in the management of the Shrine. Rituals are commercialised.

2. The issue raised involves enforcement of fundamental right under Article 25 and Directive Principles under Article 38, 49 and 51A(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India and other rights.

3. Issue notice returnable on 05.07.2018.

4. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India, is present in Court and on our asking, he has agreed to put in appearance for respondent no.1-Union of India.

5. Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, learned counsel, also agrees to appear for respondent no.2 and 5. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, learned counsel, appears for respondent no.3 and 4. They may file their response before the next date.

6. Service is complete.

7. There is no doubt that proper management of pilgrimage centres of great importance is a matter of public interest. These centres are of undoubted religious, social historical and architectural importance, representing cultural heritage of our country. Millions of people visit these centres not only for tourism but also for seeking inspiration for the righteous values and for their well being. They also make huge offerings and donations for advancement of such values.

8. This Court in Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri Management Committee v. Chintamani Khuntia, (1997) 8 SCC 422, considered and upheld validity of section 28B and 28C(9) of Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, which required placing of hundis for receiving offerings of the devotees visiting the temple.

9. This Court in the course of consideration, inter alia, made the following observations :

(i) The Shri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act 1952 was an attempt to check moral degeneration of attendants/Sevaks and to check mismanagement. (Para 7)

(ii) The Attendants/Sevaks of the temple do not have any right under Article 300A to share the offerings as of right. They are entitled to remuneration as per rules. (Paras 1, 27, 28, 30, 35, 51)

(iii) Right to manage the temple is secular in nature and does not affect right of Sevaks. (Para 49)

(iv) The rules can be framed to regulate the payment of remuneration to the Sevaks out of the collections or otherwise. (Para 49)

(v) Offerings can be collected in Hundis and will vest in the Temple fund and will not be individual earning of Sevaks. (Paras 19, 20, 29, 32 and 50)

10. Having regard to the nature of the issue, we consider it appropriate to issue the following interim directions :

(i) The District Judge, Puri, may give a report on factual aspects of

(a) Difficulties faced by the visitors;

(b) Exploitative practices, if any;

(c) Deficiencies in the management, if any;

(d) Suggestions, if any.

The District Judge, Puri, may give an interim report by June 30, 2018. He may take assistance of the Collector and the Administrator. The Collector/Administrator may provide necessary funds, facilities and information, as may be necessary. He may consider any earlier study/report on the subject.

(ii) We also direct the Administrator to review the arrangement of CCTV camras already installed. Apart from the installation of more CCTV camras at appropriate locations, footage thereof should be viewed by an independent committee at suitable intervals and the report thereof be given to the District Judge, Puri, once in every month so that the District Judge may issue any direction in this regard, if necessary.

(iii) The Administrator may also ensure that no direct collection of the offerings is made by any Sevaks and all the offerings either in hundi or are deposited and accounted for and properly utilized. They should not be individual pockets by the Sevaks/atten