A 31-year-old man who had added “Lord Hanuman” as a party to a dispute over a temple built on private property and asserted the right to worship was fined Rs. 1 lakh by the Delhi High Court on Monday. Ankit Mishra, the appellant, filed an “objection petition” with several other people, but the additional district judge (ADJ) dismissed it. 

He then moved to the Delhi High Court. The additional district judge stated in their ruling that Mishra could not provide “any bona fides” that would have allowed him to file a lawsuit in the future as Lord Hanuman, the god’s friend. The ADJ further held that no deity housed in a religious structure “can vest in an illegal religious structure built on private land belonging to another,” in accordance with Article 25 of the Indian Constitution and that in such a case, no right vests in the deity.

Justice C Hari Shankar’s one-judge bench noted in its ruling on Monday, “I never thought that God would, one day, be a litigant before me. Fortunately, this is an instance of divinity by proxy. “Public worship at a private temple, even with free access, does not ipso facto indicate that the temple is a public temple,” noted Justice Shankar. Justice Shankar went on to say that just because someone is permitted to worship in a private temple does not imply that the deity owns the “land on which a private temple is constructed.”

Fundamentally, what matters are the intentions behind the temple’s construction, its dedication to the deity housed within, and its public opening. Justice Shankar emphasised that “all the persons who (are) asserting have the onus to establish that the temple, though initially privately constructed, acquires public character with the passage of time.”

Judge Shankar noted that there is no mention in the case of whether the land was ever endowed for religious purposes. All mentioned is that the temple is a place of public worship. Even that is merely a brazen assertion without citation to any supporting evidence. It is not asserted that the worship was, on principle. A private temple does not become a public temple simply because members of the public worship there. Therefore, the HC emphasised, “the averments in the objection petition do not even make out a prima facie case of the disputed temple, in the present case, being a public temple.”

After depriving Suraj Malik (respondent in the appeal and plaintiff before the ADJ) of its use for 22 years and demanding and recovering Rs 11 lakh to regain possession of it, Justice Shankar noted that this is unquestionably a case of rank collusion with an intent to seize the suit property.

Judge Shankar further noted that it was acknowledged that Suraj Malik, Respondent No. 5 in the appeal, currently possesses the private land on which the temple was built. According to Justice Shankar, Mishra’s objection petition makes no mention of how the temple came to be built. Although there is a claim that the temple was built in 1997, even that claim is unproven. Thus, the exact date of the temple’s construction is entirely speculative, according to Justice Shankar.

According to Justice Shankar, the ADJ ruled that Ankit Mishra lacked the right to worship at the temple because Suraj Malik was the temple’s legitimate owner when it was reclaimed “because no such right existed in the first place.”