Temple's Sanctity Not Endangered by Proximity of Humble Homes of Slum Dwellers: Karnataka High Court Upholds Slum Declaration - 2025-09-24

‘Dignity of Slum Dwellers is No Less Sacred’: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Devotees’ Plea Against Slum Near Temple

BENGALURU: In a significant judgment championing constitutional equality and human dignity, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by devotees of the Sree Kalikamba Temple in Mandya who sought to quash a government notification declaring land adjacent to the temple as a slum area. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna strongly rebuked the petitioners' contention that the presence of slum dwellers would erode the temple's sanctity, stating that such a notion is "appalling" and an "attempt to rend society asunder."

The court upheld the actions of the Karnataka Slum Development Board to rehabilitate slum dwellers on the disputed land, emphasizing that the Constitution of India knows no hierarchy of human worth.

Case Background: A Decades-Long Dispute

The legal battle dates back to a 1979 notification identifying slum areas in Mandya. The dispute centers on land in Survey Nos. 843 and 844, adjacent to the Sree Kalikamba Temple. Over the years, the temple’s management, Sri Kalikamba Seva Samithi, made several attempts to have the slum dwellers relocated.

In 2006, the Temple Samithi filed a writ petition seeking their eviction. The matter culminated in a "compromise-cum-gift deed" in March 2013, where the Samithi agreed to donate 20 guntas of land to the Slum Board for constructing houses for the residents. This compromise was recorded and accepted by the High Court, which disposed of the petition.

However, five years later, in 2018, when the Deputy Commissioner issued a final notification officially declaring the 20 guntas as a slum area based on the compromise, a group of devotees filed the present writ petition challenging it. Concurrently, the Temple Samithi filed a review petition to recall the 2013 order, claiming the compromise was entered into under duress and without proper authority.

Arguments from Both Sides

• Petitioners' Arguments (Devotees and Temple Samithi): The devotees, represented by Senior Advocate R.V.S. Naik, argued that the notifications violated the temple's property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution. They contended that the 2013 compromise was a "fraud," executed without a valid resolution from the Temple Samithi, and that the temple's land could not be gifted away. The primary contention, particularly in the review petition, was that allowing a slum next to the temple would "affect the sanctity and serenity of the temple" and violate the religious feelings of devotees under Article 29 of the Constitution.

• Respondents' Arguments (State, Slum Board, and Slum Dwellers): The State and the Slum Board argued that the devotees had no locus standi (right to sue) as they were not the owners of the property. They asserted that the Temple Samithi, having been a signatory to the 2013 compromise, could not now challenge the outcome. Counsel for the impleading slum dwellers, Sri Clifton Rozario, highlighted that their homes had already been demolished for new construction, which had stalled due to the ongoing litigation, leaving them in limbo.

Court's Scathing Rebuke and Upholding of Constitutional Values

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, in a powerfully worded judgment, dismissed both the writ petition and the review petition. The court found the petitioners' arguments to be without merit and steeped in prejudice.

On Sanctity and Equality

The court was particularly critical of the Temple Samithi’s argument that the slum’s proximity would defile the temple. The judgment observed:

"What deeply wounds the conscience of the Court are the contentions advanced by the Temple Samithi... The contention proclaims that slum dwellers are lesser beings, bereft of the right to devotion, right to shelter and a right to dwell beside a place of worship. Such an assertion, in this enlightened age, is appalling."

The court further elaborated on the constitutional ethos:

"In a Nation whose Constitution enshrines equality for all, where every citizen, be they exalted or downtrodden, affluent or impoverished, is vested with the same fundamental rights... The sanctity of a Temple is not so fragile as to be endangered by the presence of the creator’s children who, by accident of circumstance, live modestly beside it."

On Legal Standing and the Compromise Deed

The court held that the devotees, not being owners or "persons interested" under the Slum Act, lacked the locus standi to challenge the acquisition. It also rejected the Temple Samithi's attempt to disavow the 2013 compromise, calling it an "afterthought, bereft of substance or credibility." The court noted that the President of the Samithi and other members were signatories and that the compromise, having been recorded by the court and acted upon, was binding.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and rejected the review petition, which was filed after an inordinate delay of eight years. The court dissolved all interim orders and directed the authorities to proceed with the rehabilitation of the slum dwellers "without brooking any further delay."

In its conclusion, the judgment served as a profound reminder of India's constitutional promise:

"If India has to endure as a nation of the first order, it cannot consign any of its citizens to a second class existence. The dignity of slum dwellers is no less sacred that of the devout... The Constitution of India knows no hierarchy of human worth, all are equal before its gaze."