SC refuses to interfere with Delhi HC order on eviction of unauthorised occupants from Kalkaji Mandir

Dismissing the appeal, the court said, “We grant liberty to the petitioners to move the Administrator appointed by the High Court with their grievances. It would be open to the Administrator to place a report before the High Court for suitable directions. However, maintenance of the temple and its surroundings in a dignified manner in the interests of devotees must be of paramount importance.”

“There are no positive directions to evict the pujaris as such. It’s only unauthorised constructions. Go and show to the Administrator,” remarked Justice Surya Kant.

“The urgency is Navratra. The High Court is seized of it and we trust the High Court,” said Justice Chandrachud, adding that in “some matters we should trust the High Court judges…We are not here as an appellate forum in every matter. The dignity of the deity must be preserved”.

The HC, while directing the eviction to proceed from March 24, had said there is “a sense of urgency in view of the fact that the Navratras will be commencing from April 2, and proper arrangements have to be made for the entry and exit of lakhs of devotees who visit the Kalkaji Mandir”.

The HC added that Kalkaji Mandir premises see a steady and high influx of devotees during the Navratra period, and the continued occupation of jhuggis and dharamshalas would pose an “enormous threat” to the safety and security of devotees.

The unauthorised occupants, nearly 40 families, had earlier been given three options in accordance with a court order, and asked to either take flats on rent from the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) or apply to the DDA for purchase of EWS flats or to move to rain baseras.

However, they allegedly refused to accept any of the options following which the court passed the eviction order.

Hearing the appeal against this Friday, Justice Chandrachud said the High Court may have been given the order as the petitioners appeared to be only interested in making money.

However, the counsel representing them said they were not interested in money but the land which belonged to them.

He pointed out that in response to a direction from the SC in the past, the Sub Divisional Magistrate had filed an affidavit stating that “these are private land of the pujaris and it doesn’t belong to the deity. It is not government land”.

To a query on the demolitions, the counsel said the unauthorised jhuggis were being demolished. “These dharamshalas are from 200 years back.

These are pujaris who are staying with their families”, he added. The bench however expressed its disinclination to entertain the matter.