No court exercises ecclesiastical jurisdiction: Madras HC laments over prevalence of superstitious beliefs even now

CHENNAI: While directing the removal of a stone perceived as an idol planted outside a private property, the Madras High Court lamented noting the existence of superstitious beliefs in the society even now. 
Highlighting that no court exercises ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the High Court said this, 

Fortunately in our country, no court exercises ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It is quite unfortunate that such superstitious beliefs continues to prevail in the society and people do not seem to evolve by passage of time.

In this case, the grievance of the petitioner was that right in front of his property, a stone was erected and attempted to be projected as an idol. And so, there was resistance from the seventh respondent not to remove this stone. Since the petitioner was not able to enjoy his own property, he filed a complaint with the police who did not provide any protection. Subsequently, the case reached the High Court. 

After going through the photographs submitted, the court noted that there was a stone planted right in front of the petitioners property. 

By covering that stone with a green cloth, an attempt is made by someone to call it as an idol, on that ground, the petitioner is not allowed to enjoy his property and the petitioner is not able to remove the stone. For this purpose, it is not possible for the petitioner to approach the civil Court, the court said. 

The Court stated that it is impossible to decide whether it is a stone or it has uplifted itself into the status of an idol. 

A very funny situation will arise before the civil Court wherein the seventh respondent will claim that the stone must be treated as an idol and the petitioner will state that it is merely a stone and not an idol. It will become impossible for the Court to decide whether it is a stone or it has uplifted itself into the status of an idol. 

Saying that it would be a waste of judicial time to ponder over such a frivolous issue, the Court added that no useful purpose would be served by initiating proceedings before the civil Court. 
Granting relief to the petitioner, the Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police to act upon the petitioners complaint. 

Advocate L Dhamodharan appeared for the petitioners and Additional Public Prosecutor A Damodaran appeared for the first 6 Respondents.