[COVID-19] "God is within us and God is everywhere", cannot allow prayer to reopen places of worship at this stage: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has rejected two petitions for the reopening of Jain Temples during the COVID-19 pandemic on account of the life and public health implications of such a decision (Ankit Hirji Vora v. Union of India and others ; Shree Trustee Atma Kamal Labdhisurishwarji Jain Gyanmandir Trust and another v. The State of Maharashtra and others).."... it is the duty of every right thinking person at this stage to balance their religious duties with public duty, and their responsibility towards the rest of mankind. In this regard, we again repeat what we have already told the Petitioners at the time of hearing, that 'God is within us' and 'God is everywhere.'"the Court added in its order..The Bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Madhav J Jamdar stated that it was with “great reluctance” that the relief sought was declined by the Court..The petitioners had sought urgent reliefs from the Court to offer puja in temples during the Paryushan, an auspicious period for Jains. .On August 11, the Court had directed the Secretary, Disaster Management and Relief to adjudge the possibility of permitting the reopening of temples during this period, as sought by the petitioners..The Secretary's order rejecting the petitioners’ application was tabled in Court. The Court accepted the Secretary’s reasons stating:.“... whilst we appreciate the religious fervour of the members of the Jain Community, who are seeking access to the places of worship for spiritual advancement/activities and also being sensitive to the fact that great inconvenience is caused to various sections of the people in the State due to the various restrictions imposed, we are of the view that the members of the public should appreciate that the Centre as well as the State Government, who despite being over burdened, have left no stone unturned in taking all possible measures to safeguard the public health of its citizens, and that the said restrictions are imposed in their larger interest. Keeping in mind that maintenance of public health is of paramount importance and the peculiar pandemic that has gripped the world and taken a huge toll in our country, in terms of the number of lives lost, we are inclined to agree with the reasons given by the Secretary…”.The Secretary, Kishore Raje Nimbalkar, after considering the petitioners’ representations, recorded that the permissions sought could not be granted at this stage, considering the pandemic..When the phased reopening of public places was announced with the Unlock Guidelines, the reopening of religious places of worship was permitted subject to compliance with a Standard Operating Procedure. .He noted that the State of Maharashtra was among the worst hit by the pandemic. Both the State and Central Guidelines for virus containment ordered for the closure of places of worship and a prohibition of religious congregations when the lockdown was announced, he further stated..However, the State Governments were allowed to restrain/prohibit activities outside containment zones based on their assessment of the prevailing situation..Not appropriate to rule on re-opening of religious places amid COVID-19 pandemic: Orissa HC says it is up to State to decide.As such, the Secretary explained that the State of Maharashtra has taken a conscious policy decision to continue with the closure of all places of worship and not permit any kind of religious congregations, after looking at the ground level situation that is prevailing..He further pointed out that persons of all other faiths followed these restrictions scrupulously, observing their religious festivities and sacred days at home. In this light, there was “no reason at all, much less just and proper to carve out an exception for the applicants”, he opined..The Bombay High Court had required the Secretary to consider the feasibility of reopening places of worship given the restart of commercial activities such as barbershops etc. The Secretary responded that the two activities could not be compared since one is religious while the other is commercial. .The Secretary added that the decision to reopen commercial establishments was taken to revive the economy, which the pandemic had forced to a “grinding halt”. There was no question of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution in the case at hand, he said..Citing the recent spate of coronavirus infections at the Tirupati Temple in Andhra Pradesh, he highlighted that the ramifications of a spread of the virus, if places of worship were reopened, were “irreversible.”.Permitting one religious group to mark its auspicious days by reopening places of worship would open a floodgate of similar representations by other religious groups, he noted..For these reasons, Secretary Nimbalkar rejected the representation for the reopening of Jain Temples for the Paryushan period..The Court accepted his order but directed that the case be listed again on September 7, 2020, since the prevailing restrictions were in force only up to August 31..Advocates Prakash Shah and Jas Sanghavi, instructed by Advocate Durgaprasad Poojary appeared for the first petitioner, Advocates Prafulla B Shah and Gunjan Shah instructed by Advocate Kayval Shah represented the second petitioner..Government Pleaders PH Kantharia Geeta Shastri, argued for the State, and ASG Anil C Singh, Advocates Aditya Thakkar and DP Singh appeared for the Central Government..Read the High Court Order here:.Read the Secretary's decision here: