On October 4, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s principal bench in Jabalpur issued a significant directive banning the construction of temples on police station premises, sparking a debate on religious structures within state institutions. The bench, led by Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kaith, issued notices to multiple senior state officials, including Chief Secretary Anurag Jain, Director General of Police Sudhir Saxena, and the Jabalpur district administration. The court sought explanations on how religious structures are being erected on government property, a practice that potentially contradicts the secular framework mandated by the Indian Constitution. Notices were also sent to the Home Department, Urban Administration Department, and the Station House Officers (SHOs) of four Jabalpur police stations—Civil Lines, Vijay Nagar, Madan Mahal, and Lord Ganj—where temples currently stand.
Petition highlights violation of Supreme Court order and demands action
The case, brought forward by Jabalpur resident O.P. Yadav, raises concerns about administrative integrity and calls for the removal of temples in police stations, citing Supreme Court rulings prohibiting the construction of religious structures in public spaces, especially state offices. Yadav, represented by lawyer Satish Verma, had argued that police stations, as public offices, should not accommodate religious edifices, as this violates the Supreme Court’s directive and raises questions about the separation of religion from state institutions. The petitioner has urged the court to initiate disciplinary action under civil service regulations against the SHOs who permitted these constructions. A hearing has been scheduled for November 19, 2024, when state officials are expected to respond to the notices.
Interim stay on temple constructions and broader implications for state neutrality
In response to the petition, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Kaith and Justice Vivek Jain issued an interim stay on further temple construction within police station premises across Madhya Pradesh. This order reinforces the Supreme Court’s guidelines aimed at maintaining secularism in public administration by barring religious installations in state institutions. According to Yadav’s petition, the presence of temples within police stations signifies an unwarranted religious influence within the executive branch, which he argues undermines the impartial role of law enforcement agencies. Photographic evidence submitted by Yadav depicts temple structures within police compounds, spotlighting a recurring issue of religion entering public administration—a practice that could erode constitutional values by compromising the secular nature of government agencies.
This case has significant implications for upholding the separation of religion from governance, a cornerstone of India’s secular constitutional framework. Government institutions, including police stations, are intended to serve citizens impartially, free from religious symbols or affiliations. By allowing religious structures like temples on state premises, the neutrality of these institutions could be compromised, potentially creating perceptions of bias or favouritism. This not only contravenes the Supreme Court’s directives against religious sites in public spaces but also risks encouraging demands for representation from other faith groups, turning government offices into spaces of religious contention rather than service and justice.
The judiciary’s intervention underscores the importance of secularism in preserving social cohesion and public trust. Upholding secular principles in state institutions is essential to ensure that every citizen feels represented and protected by an impartial administration. A clear boundary between religion and governance strengthens public confidence in equal treatment before the law and reinforces the state’s commitment to the rights of all citizens, regardless of faith. This case, therefore, could set a vital precedent, affirming the need for government institutions to prioritise constitutional values over religious affiliations, preserving their role as inclusive and unbiased entities in a diverse society.
Related: