Supreme Court on Illegal Religious Structures in Public Spaces

In urban India, religious structures like temples, shrines, and mosques often dot public streets, parks, and footpaths. While they hold deep cultural significance, what happens when these are built without authorization? The Supreme Court of India has addressed this pressing issue repeatedly, balancing religious sentiments with public order, safety, and legal compliance.

What does the Supreme Court say about unauthorized religious structures? These constructions on public land are generally deemed illegal and subject to review, removal, or regularization based on specific criteria. This blog delves into the Court's key findings, directives, and procedural guidelines, drawing from landmark judgments.

Main Legal Findings

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that unauthorized religious structures on public streets, parks, or other public places are illegal. Authorities must review and act on them expeditiously. No religious construction is permitted without proper authorization, and existing ones require case-by-case evaluation for demolition or regularization.

Key principles include:- Prohibition on new constructions: Interim orders explicitly ban unauthorized religious builds on public land 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 1302.- Post-direction structures: Those built after Court directives (e.g., post-2009) must be dealt with promptly, often via demolition

Neeta Bhardwaj vs Kamlesh Sharma - Delhi (2022)

Neeta Bhardwaj vs Kamlesh Sharma - Delhi (2022)

Landmark Supreme Court Directives

In Union of India v. State of Gujarat2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 1302, the Court issued a pivotal 2011 order:

No unauthorized construction of any religious institution...shall be permitted on public street/public space. Structures already built must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and appropriate steps taken expeditiously.

This interim measure remains binding, underscoring timely action. Structures post-2009 directions in SLP No. 8519/2006 face immediate removal

Neeta Bhardwaj vs Kamlesh Sharma - Delhi (2022)

The Court distinguishes lawful grants from unauthorized occupation. In Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab2022 0 Supreme(Del) 221, it clarified that illegal occupants of religious premises lack tenancy rights and must be evicted separately.

Review, Demolition, and Regularization Processes

Authorities must categorize structures:- Post-Court order builds: Demolish without delay. For instance, a Government Resolution (G.R.) post-2011 mandated demolition of 176 such structures identified after May 29, 2009 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1631.- Pre-existing ones: Eligible for regularization if ancient, publicly accepted, and legally compliant. However, those causing obstruction or law/order issues are removed

Neeta Bhardwaj vs Kamlesh Sharma - Delhi (2022)

Procedures demand fairness. In one case, courts criticized unilateral demolition notices without hearings, mandating compliance with prescribed steps like those in G.R. 2011 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1631 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1149. The Court noted:

Admittedly except for pasting of the impugned notices of demolition on religious structures, no notice or opportunity of hearing is given... 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1631.

This ensures due process, especially for objections claiming pre-2009 erection.

Distinction for Unauthorized Occupants

Religious premises occupants without valid leases are unauthorized, unlike regular tenants. Drawing from the Religious Premises Act, 1998, and cases like Bal Bhagwan v. Delhi Development Authority, the Court emphasizes eviction 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1706. In redevelopment contexts, like Kalkaji Mandir, surveys, evictions, and slum rehabilitation are directed, but unauthorized religious occupants get no special protection 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1706.

The Supreme Court reinforces: The Supreme Court has time and again held that no unauthorized constructions or encroachments shall take place in the name of religious places 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1706.

Application Across Contexts and States

These rulings apply nationwide, from Gujarat and Maharashtra to Delhi and Kerala. Encroachments on government land, roads, or reserved areas must be addressed 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 1302

Neeta Bhardwaj vs Kamlesh Sharma - Delhi (2022)

Counterarguments for regularization based on sentiments are rejected; legality prevails. Structures masking commercial use or unplanned settlements are prime targets for removal.

Procedural Guidelines from Government Resolutions

Post-Supreme Court orders, G.R.s like 2011 provide frameworks: classify structures, hear objections, and act. Courts monitor via PILs, granting liberty for compliance but striking down procedural lapses 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1149. For example:

The Government Resolution of 2011 has been issued...in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1149.

Key Takeaways and Recommendations

• Enforce strictly: Timely reviews of all structures, prioritizing post-2009 demolitions.
• Fair hearings: Provide notice and opportunity before action.
• Regularization criteria: Limited to old, compliant pre-direction structures.
• Evict unauthorizedly: Treat as distinct from slum dwellers; rehabilitation not automatic.
• Public priority: Religion cannot justify impeding development or safety.

Authorities should follow these to uphold law. Additional references include 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 450 for expeditious reviews and 2021 0 Supreme(Del) 586 for occupation distinctions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court prioritizes public spaces free from illegal encroachments, even religious ones. While allowing limited regularization, it mandates removal of unauthorized structures to protect order and safety. This stance, evolved through cases like 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 1302 and 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 221, guides states uniformly.

This post provides general insights based on public judgments and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific matters.