Skip to main content

Bombay High Court Stops BMC from Further Demolition of Jain Temple in Vile Parle


The Bombay High Court, on April 16, directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to immediately halt the demolition of a Jain temple in Mumbai’s Vile Parle after the Shree 1008 Digambar Jain Mandir Trust challenged the civic body’s actions.  


Justice Gauri Godse granted interim protection to the temple until the next hearing on April 30, stating that the Trust was entitled to a reasoned order and a fair hearing before any further demolition. The court emphasized that the status quo as of April 16 must be maintained.  

The BMC had initiated demolition based on notices under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. While the Trust had sought interim relief from a city civil court earlier, their plea was rejected on April 7, with a seven-day stay expiring on April 15. When the Trust sought an extension, the court reportedly rejected it orally, prompting the Trust to approach the High Court urgently.  

During the hearing, BMC counsel Drupad Patil informed the court that, apart from two remaining walls (15 feet and 7 feet in length, each 10 feet high), the rest of the temple structure had already been demolished. The High Court directed the BMC to file an affidavit within two weeks confirming the demolition details and ensure no further action is taken until further orders.  

The case will next be heard on April 30. The Trust was represented by Senior Advocate Surel Shah, while Advocate Drupad Patil appeared for the BMC.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Doctrine of Arbitrariness Under Article 14: Landmark E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu Case Explained

Introduction Equality is the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, enshrined under Article 14 , which guarantees “equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision forms the foundation of India’s legal structure, ensuring fairness, non-discrimination, and uniformity in applying laws. The interpretation of Article 14 evolved significantly over time, especially with the landmark case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) , which introduced the Doctrine of Arbitrariness. This legal turning point  expanded the meaning of equality beyond mere classification. Understanding Article 14 – Right to Equality Article 14 of the Constitution of India states: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision ensures that all individuals, irrespective of race, religion, caste, gender, or place of birth, are treated equally under the...
Post a Comment
Read more

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...
Post a Comment
Read more

Coalgate Scam (2014) – Supreme Court’s Verdict on Coal Block Allocations in India

Overview of the Coalgate Scam The Coalgate Scam , officially known as the Coal Allocation Scam , is one of India’s biggest corruption controversies. It involved the irregular allocation of coal blocks by the Indian government to private companies without competitive bidding between 2004 and 2009 , during the tenure of the UPA government . The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) estimated a potential loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore to the public exchequer, due to the non-transparent and arbitrary allocation of coal-rich blocks to select firms. What Was the Coal Allocation Scam About? Coal blocks are parcels of coal-rich land given to companies for mining. Between 2004–2009 , the government allocated over 200 coal blocks to private companies using a discretionary allotment method . No public auction was held, leading to unjust enrichment of certain private entities. Many companies that received coal blocks had little or no prior experience in coal mining . Supreme C...
Post a Comment
Read more