SC upholds HC verdict on Jain worship

However, the Supreme Court judges made it clear that the High Court verdict was only for the purpose of disposal of the application before it and no part of its order would influence the consideration of merits of the case which was ultimately to be decided by the trial court.

Dismissing the appeal filed by Naresh Amrit Lal Shah and others recently, the apex court judges did not pass any further orders on expeditious hearing of the matter by the trial court in view of a similar direction by the High Court.

The High Court ruling had attempted to settle the controversy over the manner of `gurupoojan’ (worshipping guru) and observance of `thitis’ in the absence of any such mention in Jain religious scriptures since time immemorial.

While one section believed in `Ekang’ (in reverence to one point of guru’s body) and `Ek Thiti’, the other followed `Navang’ (in reverence to nine points of the body) and `Be Thiti’. However, there was no dispute over the manner in which idol should be worshipped.

The High Court verdict had upheld a lower court’s order which restrained Matunga Jain Shwetamber Murti Pujak Tapagachha Sangh, a trust, from displaying signboards at Upashraya (temple) banning Navangi worship and the practice of following the “Be Thithi” calender.

Some devotees had challenged in a civil court resolutions passed by the trust in its general body meeting on July 1, 1998 banning Navangi worship. The court ruled in their favour and the aggreived trust filed an appeal before the High Court.

High Court judge Rajan Kochar said that “Guru Vandana will totally depend on devotee and his guru. No trust can permit or allow any member of the Jain community to perform `guru pooja’ in a particular way. There is nothing wrong if a devotee or member of the trust performs `pooja’ in accordance with his own `bhakti’ which however, should not be against the Jain religion+.

“If the guru accepts such a form of worship (Navangi), I do not find how the trust can prevent or prohibit `gurupoojan’ by a devotee in this manner. It may be that Navangi was acceptable to a microscopic minority among Jains and may not be accepted universally. But there is no Jain `shastra’ or scripture to show that Navangi is against the tenets of Jain religion+.

Navangi might be of recent origin but such a practice was in vogue in a section of the Jain community and if such worship was in accordance with religious tenets, practices and usage, the trust had no powers to restrict devotees from performing it in the Upashraya. It also had no right to allow only Ekangi worship, Justice Kochar had ruled.

It was open for Jain Acharyas to accept or reject suchpractice of worship but the trust was not empowered to do so, he said.