On March 17, 2008, Shugden Society filed civil writ petition in Delhi High Court against the Dalai Lama and Tibetan government exile. The petition was accepted, and notice was sent to them on April 8, 2008. The news appeared in Times of India. Meanwhile the respondents sought time twice for their reply. However, the hearing was begun on January 15, 2009. And two years had elapsed. On April 5, 2010, Delhi High Court passed judgment. Extract:
1) The government of India pointed out that this court has no territorial jurisdiction over a dispute. As they are located in Dharamshala, the state government is to investigate the allegations against the Dalai Lama and Tibetan government in exile. Indian government does not recognize the so-called Tibetan government in exile. It is further stated that worshippers of Dorje Shugden have a right to freedom of religion as enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution.
2) Center Tibetan Administration categorically stated that its role is merely facilitative in the process of the center government issuing registration certificates and identity cards.
3) Given the prayers made in the writ petition, it appears to this Court that the question of directions being issued to Respondents 3 and 4 not to harass or maltreat the members of Petitioner No.1 Society does not really arise particularly in the absence of any specific instances of any such attacks on the members of Petitioner No.1 Society by the Respondent No.3. Further, there is no mention of any complaint having been made to the police by Petitioners regarding such attacks, which have not been acted upon by the police authorities
4) The writ petition refers to certain remarks made by Respondent No.4 during a visit to Mundgod in Karnataka which is supposed to have led to attack by the followers of Respondent No.4 upon the worshippers of Dorje Shugden. Apart from this averment being vague, it appears that no formal complaint was lodged by the members of Petitioner No.1 Society in relation to such instance with the police in Karnataka. Tere is no question of any interference on the basis of such vague averments particularly when the criminal law remedy available to the Petitioners has not been availed of by them.
5) The petition adverts to issues concerning the religious practices adopted by the Petitioner which are apparently opposed by Respondents 3 and 4. On their part, Respondents 3 and 4 have, in their counter affidavit, referred to an understanding reached whereby it was left to the monks to decide whether they would want to be associated with the practices of Dorje Shugden. It is submitted that there is no personal ban on the Petitioners.
6) This Court does not consider it appropriate to express any view on these issues. These do not partake of any public law character and therefore are not justiciable in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Matters of religion and the differences among groups concerning propitiation of religion, cannot be adjudicated upon by a High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
7) For all of the above reasons, this Court finds that it cannot entertain the present
writ petition. It is however clarified that the dismissal of this petition will not preclude any individual member or members of the Petitioner No.1 Society to seek appropriate remedies as may be available to them in law before the appropriate forum.
There is no question of win - lose matter here. The dismissal of the case is disappointing. On other hand this experience probably gave us second chance to approach in better and efficient way. Moreover, it also implies that collaboration and fraternity are priorities. Also, our lawyer said that the Society can file a Suit and individuals who are affected can file individual Petitions.
The society tried its best according to its ability. Of course the society is poorly funded. But this is not end of our struggle for religious freedom, human dignity and equality, since our cause is just. And it goes without saying that those who walk on the path of truth often face challenges. Despite hindrance we ought to effort that no one live through the deprivation of their basic rights, and pledge to promote love, compassion and tolerance in lieu of merely preaching them.
April 22, 2010
