Reported by
Legal Review by
Edited by
Updated by
Published on
August 26, 2019
May 2, 2023
Edited on
August 26, 2019
The Ravidas temple was demolished by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on August 10, 2019, following an order of the Supreme Court dated April 8, 2019. Dalit leaders have accused the Union government, to whom the DDA reports, of disregarding the sentiments of Dalits, who are followers of Ravidas.
Upholding a 2018 order of the Delhi high court, the Supreme Court had ordered the area to be vacated within two months, starting April 2019. On August 2, the Guru Ravidas Jayanti Samaroh Samiti (an organisation that supervised the temple's management) informed the Supreme Court that it had vacated the area. The court wanted the claim to be verified.
On August 9, the DDA informed the court that the premises had not been vacated and that the Samiti had misled the court by giving a "false statement". The DDA also said that the Samiti was creating unauthorised buildings and structures on green land and hence they were illegal. The court then ordered that the premises should be vacated within a day (by August 10) and the structure be removed by the DDA with the help of the police. The court directed Delhi Police to provide adequate help to remove the structure.
The root cause of the conflict is a 33-year-old legal battle between the DDA and the Samiti regarding the ownership of the land where the temple was built. The Samiti contests that it has ownership over the land in question while the DDA argues that it is essentially government land encroached upon by the Samiti.
According to documents submitted by the Samiti to the Delhi high court and later to the Supreme Court, the overall premises consist of an area spread over approximately 2.55 acres, which includes 20 rooms, a hall and two separate meditation rooms. The matter reached the court first in 1986 when the Samiti filed a writ petition against the DDA and the Delhi high court passed a status quo order on any further construction. On November 5, 1992, the DDA undertook a demolition drive to raze the unauthorised buildings. The Samiti moved the court and a long, legal battle over land ownership followed.
The DDA has consistently rejected the ownership claims made by the Samiti. It said that the land in question was acquired in 1963 under the Land Acquisition Act and that due compensation was paid to the people living on it. Though the high court ruled in favour of the DDA, it suggested a possible way out to resolve the dispute: to shift the temple and the two rooms from the existing location to about 400 feet at the periphery of the plot of land. The court said there would be independent access to the small temple with two rooms and there would be no need to use or access any other land of the DDA. The temple authorities refused and the legal battle over land ownership continued.
After the demolition of the temple in August 2019, protesters of all age groups marched from Ambedkar Bhawan in Jhandewalan to the Ramlila Maidan in Delhi on August 21. The protest in Delhi came a week after a similar protest on August 13 by Dalits in Punjab over the same issue. The demonstrators in Delhi arrived from Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and other states. Ninety-six Dalit activists were arrested.
Ashok Tanwar and Pradeep Jain Aditya, two former MPs from the Congress party, filed a writ petition at the Supreme Court contending that the demolition of the Ravidas temple and the prevention of entry to the temple site for devotees entail a violation of the right to worship. Stating in the petition that the site has been worshipped for the last 500-600 years and is protected under the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the petitioners claimed that the "Guru Dham" and the adjoining structures had been there for centuries and existed prior to any master plan or modern English law system as now prevalent in India.
The Akhil Bharatiya Sant Shiromani Guru Ravidas Mandir Sanyukta Sanrakhshan Samiti, an umbrella body of Dalit groups formed to protest against the temple demolition, has demanded that the government rebuild the temple at the same spot. They sat on a strike at the Jantar Mantar in New Delhi from August 30 till September 7.
On October 21, 2019, the Supreme Court accepted a proposal submitted by the Union government for the construction of a shrine dedicated to Guru Ravidas. The proposal suggested the construction of the temple in South Delhi's Tughlaqabad forest area in 400 square metres of land. While the temple will be constructed at the same place where it stood prior to demolition, the area apportioned for the shrine now stands increased.
In October 2020, it was reported that the DDA had formally accepted the allotment of 400 square metres of land for the proposed temple in Jahanpanah city forest in Tughlaqabad. It also recommended a change in land use from recreational to public and semi-public in lieu of religious use.
Demand to get back acquired land
Construction of new temple at an alternate location
Urban
Common and Private
Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Religious/Sacred/Cultural value
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Source/Reference
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
Type of investment:
Year of Estimation
Page Number In Investment Document:
Has the Conflict Ended?
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Land Acquisition Laws, Other
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Controversial land acquisition by the government
Lack of legal protection over land rights
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Disposed
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
No
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
High Court of Delhi; Supreme Court of India
Case Number
RFA No. 822/2018; W.P.(C) No. 1135/2019
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Arrest/detention/imprisonment
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Yes
Reported Details of the Violation:
Police arrested 96 Dalit activists during a protest.
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
Ramlila Maidan, New Delhi
Nature of Protest
Protests/marches
Hunger strike
Complaints/petitions/letters/memorandums to officials
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Delhi Development Authority, Delhi Government, Government of India
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
Dalits, Sikhs
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
Image Credit:
Image Credit:
© 2023 Nut Graph LLP
All Rights Reserved.
