The Karnataka High Court has unequivocally stated that the sacredness of a temple is not so delicate that it could be threatened by the humble presence of individuals, who, due to life’s circumstances, reside in a nearby slum. These individuals, the court emphasized, are as much ‘the Creator’s children’ as anyone else.
The court expressed profound dismay and a ‘deep wound to its conscience’ over the arguments presented by the temple committee (samiti). The committee had regrettably asserted that the mere existence of slum dwellers near the temple’s sacred grounds diminished its sanctity and tranquility, thereby offending the religious sentiments of numerous devotees.
Appalling Assertion Challenged
The Karnataka High Court condemned the Kalikamba Seva Samiti’s written declaration, which ‘proclaims that slum dwellers are lesser beings, bereft of the right to devotion, right to shelter and a right to dwell besides a place of worship.’ The court found such a stance, especially ‘in this enlightened age, to be appalling.’
According to the court, the idea that a temple’s divine essence could be tainted by nearby modest homes or by a slum dweller’s entry reflects a ‘mindset steeped in prejudice and exclusion.’ The judges further noted that ‘such a stance is an attempt to rend society asunder along the lines of caste, class, or creed,’ highlighting the divisive nature of the committee’s arguments.
Equality: No Gradation of Human Worth
Emphasizing India’s constitutional commitment to equality for all, the court asserted that every citizen, regardless of their social standing—be they exalted or downtrodden, affluent or impoverished—is endowed with the same fundamental rights. It firmly declared that ‘equality does not admit gradations of worth; it encompasses the entirety of our citizenry.’
The judgment concluded with a powerful statement: ‘If India has to endure as a nation of the first order, it cannot consign any of its citizens to a second class existence.’ It stressed that ‘the dignity of slum dwellers is no less sacred than that of the devout’ and that ‘the rights of one cannot be secured by the suppression of the other.’ Reiterating the constitutional principle, the court stated, ‘The Constitution knows no hierarchy of human worth; all are equal before its gaze.’