‘There should be devotion in politics, not politics in devotion’: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka high court has observed that ‘there should be devotion in politics; and not politics in devotion’. The court said this after noticing that the issue in the petition is completely shrouded in politics with regard to the place of worship.

The petitioners are the trustees of Kamasaagara Beeralingeshwara and Hinde Mallikarjunaswamy temple at Doddathekalavatti village, Hosadurga taluk in Chitradurga district. The petitioners, who belong to the Hori Kuruba community, claimed that a new temple was inaugurated in 2015 and an idol was also installed in the new temple by shifting from the old temple. According to the petitioners, in the year 2020, some local people on the instruction of former MLA Govindappa tried to take away materials and properties of the new temple and shift it to the old temple, which is in a dilapidated condition.

The respondents, Govindappa and others argued that it was the petitioners who, on the ground that a new temple was constructed, took the deity from the old temple for installation, but never returned. They further argued that the deity belongs to the old temple and it has been decided in the 1982 civil proceedings.

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition in part and directed the parties as well as the authorities not to generate disturbance about the place of the deity and maintain law and order strictly. “The parties to the lis are at liberty to agitate their respective grievances or claim their respective rights over the deity continuing in the new building or to be shifted to the old temple by approaching the competent civil court. Till such time, status quo as on today shall be maintained which would be subject to the result of any suit, if instituted,” the court said.

The court also noted that the state government should ensure that public safety is kept at the forefront while taking any decision. “If the pleadings and the submissions are noticed, they are completely shrouded with politics being played with regard to the place of worship. In the peculiar facts as narrated hereinabove, it is politics that has led the petitioners to this court. People who worship are not complaining, it is the people who play with the emotions of such worshippers are at squabble. Therefore, this court is constrained to observe “there should be devotion in politics; and not politics in devotion.”