Karnataka HC Refuses To Entertain PIL Against Alleged Illegal Construction Of Crosses As The Petitioner Wants To Target Particular Religion

CASE AT HAND

• Recently, Recently, Karnataka High Court, on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by one P Rudesh seeking directions to take action against alleged illegal construction of two crosses on a hillock in Chitradurga area.
• The case involves the petitioner, who claims to be a yoga teacher, stated that Hindu groups have held dharna against the illegal construction of the two crosses.
• In the suo-motu PIL regarding illegal religious structures, all religions have created illegal religious structures in the State.
• The petition in furtherance mentioned that gathering before the cross on every Sunday causes pollution.

COURTS CONTENTIONS

• In this case the Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj termed the petition to be a motivated one and said, "On plain reading of both paragraphs, it is obvious that the petitioner is not pro-bono litigant. The petitioner obviously wants to target a particular religion."
• In regard to the illegal religious structure the Court contended that, “can you say that communal disharmony is created only because of the erection of two crosses?”
• Dealing with the second half of the petition in regards to causing pollution the Court replied, "Do congregations cause pollution? In case of how many Hindu temples there are gatherings that will not cause any pollution? This is all a motivated petition.”

FINAL CONTENTIONS OF THE COURT

• Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj termed the petition to be a motivated one and said, "On plain reading of both paragraphs, it is obvious that the petitioner is not pro-bono litigant. The petitioner obviously wants to target a particular religion."
• The Court concluded that petitioner cannot be stated to be a pro-bono litigant and at his instance the PIL cannot be entertained, in addition to this the Court contended that if the erecting of the structure is illegal the appropriate authority is bound to take action in accordance with law.

What do you think about this order by the Court? Let us know in the comments section below!