SC Ruling In Puducherry Bar Near Temple Case: Rule Of Law Is Supreme
By A Special Correspondent
First publised on 2021-10-30 13:05:53
About the Author
The Supreme Court has held that once the legal stipulation in any issue is strictly met, there are no other considerations that can normally influence the court to move against a person or entity. Hearing a case where a bar was sought to be closed down as it was situated 114.5 metres from entrance of a temple in Puducherry and some of the people who came to the bar to drink allegedly often created a ruckus in front of the temple after their drinking sessions. The court rightly did not think fit to merge the two issues (as a division bench of the Madras HC had also not done) and rightly decided the case on legal points, not getting swayed by religion and the sentiments of the devotees.
The legal stipulation in India is that a bar or a wine shop cannot be situated within 100 metres of a place of worship, along with other places such as educational institutions. Since the bar was situated beyond hundred metres, the location met the legal stipulation. The court categorically said that while it did not want to hurt the sentiments of the devotees, "once the statutory distance between the two is maintained, there is very little the court can do legally". In fact, when the counsel for the petitioners pressed for relocation, Justice Nagarathna remarked that "even if the bar is at 500 metres or 1000 metres away, people who take drinks and then want to visit the temple could also create the same kind of nuisance".
Increasingly, it is becoming a practice with some petitioners to invoke social, cultural or other issues when they find that they are on weak legal ground. Sometimes, lower courts get swayed by this argument in granting relief to such petitioners. But high courts and the Supreme Court have steadfastly refused to be swayed by such considerations and have always held that if an individual or a business entity complies with statutory requirements in totality, the courts have little reason to interfere and cause distress to such individual or entity just because another individual, organization or even the State wishes so. This proves the supremacy of rule of law over everything else.
