High Court leaves decision on Shobha Yatra to Government

The Karnataka High Court refused to pass fresh orders against the conduct of Shobha Yatra and other rituals proposed to be conducted by the Sangh Parivar at the disputed cave shrine of Bababudangiri in Chickmagalur district, but cited its earlier order to restrict rituals to those in practice prior to 1975.

“All citizens whether they are Hindus or Muslims are bound by the religious practices that existed prior to 1975 at the shrine and still in force by virtue of earlier orders passed by the High Court”, observed the division bench of High Court comprising Chief Justice Cyriac Joseph and Justice S Abdul Nazir.

The High Court’s observations came in the wake of a petition filed by K Nissar Ahmed, Shahabuddin Khan and M R Sundaresh, all or whom claimed to be devotees of the shrine. They petitioners had sought a direction from the High Court to the State Government to ban the controversial Shobha Yatra and Datta Mala Abhiyana planned by the Sangh Parivar in the interest of peace in the society.

Though the High Court refused to pass any fresh directions to the State Government on the issue, the Government authorities were reminded of their responsibility to maintain law and order at Chickmagalur during the annual Datta Jayanthi celebrations scheduled to take place on December 3 and 4.

The High Court observed that the State Government and the district administration of Chickmagalur are well aware of their legal position and their duties and obligations to implement the court orders to enforce law and order. “The law enforcing authorities are bound to take effective steps to prevent violation of court orders”, the division bench observed.

The court, however, refused to accept the petitioners’ apprehension that the state was not taking steps to maintain law and order at the disputed shrine, which would result in breakdown of law and order, communal clashes and blood shed. “The materials produced by the petitioners would show that the authorities were aware of the correct legal position, their obligation to enforce law and order and they are prepared to face any situation. The court has no reason to doubt the bonafides or earnestness of the Government in the regard”, the division bench said.