The High Court of Karnataka has ordered issue of notice to the State government on a PIL petition questioning constitutionality of the Karnataka Religious Structure (Protection) Act, 2021, which was enacted to protect religious structures, including those built illegally on public properties and existing as on the date of commencement of the new Act.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice M.G.S. Kamal passed the order on a petition filed by D. Keshavamurthy, Bengaluru-based social worker.
‘To negate court verdicts’
The petitioner has alleged that the law was enacted to negate the effect of the directions of the apex court, which in 2009 had directed all the State governments not to allow any illegal structure on public properties with effect from September 29, 2009, and demolish such structures, if put up.
The High Court, the petitioner pointed out, which initiated a suo motu PIL in 2019 to ensure implementation of the order of the apex court, too had directed the government to demolish illegal religious structures put up after the deadline set by the apex court.
In the guise of protection of religious structures, the government is granting protection to all illegal religious structures, which were identified in every district after the directions of the court, the petitioner alleged.
‘Against percept of religions’
“The Act is contrary to percepts of every religion that is practised in India. No religion advocates illegality or puts a premium on dishonesty. The Act consequently disrespects religion,” it was contended in the petition.
The State, after the specific directions from the courts, lacked competence to legislate for protecting illegal structure, the petitioner contended while pointing out that the Act not only protects the illegal structures put up prior to 2009 but safeguards illegal structures constructed till October 22, 2021, the date on which the Act came into force.
Also, the petitioner pointed out that the manner of protection for illegal structures has been left to the executive fiat and such power amounts to excessive delegation as the Act.
