This is one of the fundamental questions came before the Honourable Supreme Court. Hon. Justice Indu Malhotra asserted that temples are not Public Places, by virtue that the idea was raised and voted down at the constituent assembly.
Let us bring some logic here. What is a 'public place'? Is it a place 'used by' the public, or is it a place 'paid for' by the public? Tobe more specific, does the mere fact that the public 'uses' a facility makes it a 'public place' and grant some right to the public?
The answer is No. Mere use of a facility doesn't grant the public any right upon it. The public need to have made some expense upon the place, to gain some right into it.
Then what about places like Shops, Restaurants etc?
They are public place, because the public pays for the service. If you conduct a trade, then you can not discriminate between whom you trade with. On the other hand, a free service can choose who they serve.
But the devotees pay for the services..
No. The devotees make 'gifts' to the Deity, to show their worship. The Deity do not demand it, nor offer anything in return, except the perceived blessings.
No.. What about all these pujas and offerings you pay for.
Answer: Those are not paid to the Deity. Those are paid to the 'facilitators' of the puja. The Deity do neither solicit, nor offer these, hence not accountable for it.
Then what about the Grants given by the government?
The 'grant' is actually a compensation for taking over the temples long time ago when the Travancore Kingdom took over the temples in the kingdom. When Travancore acceded to the Indian Union, covenant was made effecting the payment.
Consider this: Sabarimala causes so much of economic activity resulting in revenue generation in the state. It is only fair that the temple gets a 'reverse tax' from that.
Let me make a parallel here. Imagine a very respected village elder who live on his pension from the govt. People visit him for blessing, advice etc, and give gifts to him. Is his house a 'public place'?
So, as the Honourable Justice Indu Malhotra asserted, Sabarimala is not a public place. The Deity is entitled for privacy, and deference to the beliefs.
The Central or State Government can actually make a legislative act, formally granting the right of privacy to the Deity, and end the current stalemate.
Let us bring some logic here. What is a 'public place'? Is it a place 'used by' the public, or is it a place 'paid for' by the public? Tobe more specific, does the mere fact that the public 'uses' a facility makes it a 'public place' and grant some right to the public?
The answer is No. Mere use of a facility doesn't grant the public any right upon it. The public need to have made some expense upon the place, to gain some right into it.
Then what about places like Shops, Restaurants etc?
They are public place, because the public pays for the service. If you conduct a trade, then you can not discriminate between whom you trade with. On the other hand, a free service can choose who they serve.
But the devotees pay for the services..
No. The devotees make 'gifts' to the Deity, to show their worship. The Deity do not demand it, nor offer anything in return, except the perceived blessings.
No.. What about all these pujas and offerings you pay for.
Answer: Those are not paid to the Deity. Those are paid to the 'facilitators' of the puja. The Deity do neither solicit, nor offer these, hence not accountable for it.
Then what about the Grants given by the government?
The 'grant' is actually a compensation for taking over the temples long time ago when the Travancore Kingdom took over the temples in the kingdom. When Travancore acceded to the Indian Union, covenant was made effecting the payment.
Consider this: Sabarimala causes so much of economic activity resulting in revenue generation in the state. It is only fair that the temple gets a 'reverse tax' from that.
Let me make a parallel here. Imagine a very respected village elder who live on his pension from the govt. People visit him for blessing, advice etc, and give gifts to him. Is his house a 'public place'?
So, as the Honourable Justice Indu Malhotra asserted, Sabarimala is not a public place. The Deity is entitled for privacy, and deference to the beliefs.
The Central or State Government can actually make a legislative act, formally granting the right of privacy to the Deity, and end the current stalemate.
No comments:
Post a Comment