IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  31.
  
  W.P. (C) No. 2222 of 2008
  
  DORJEE SHUGDEN DEVOTEES CHARITABLE
  and RELIGIOUS SOCIETY .....
  Petitioner
  Through: Mr. Jayant Tripathi and Mr. Sarafaraj Ahmad, Advocates.
  
  
versus
  
  UNION OF INDIA and ORS. ..... Respondents
  Through: Mr. Atul Nanda with Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Advocate for R-1 and R-2.
  Mr. TVS Raghavendra, Advocate for R-3 and
  R-4.
  
  
  CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
  
   O R D E R
   05.04.2010
  
  W.P.(C) No. 2222 of 2008 and CM No. 4260 of 2008 (for stay)
  
  1. The grievance of the Petitioner Society, which states that it was formed to
  protect and preserve a part of the Tibetan Mahayana Buddhist School of
  Philosophy, is that it is being ?systematically attacked, reviled and desecrated
  by the acts of omission and commission of the Respondents 3 and 4, the Tibetan
  Government in Exile located in Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh and Tenzin Gyatso,
  the 14th Dalai Lama, respectively. The Petitioner also prays for a mandamus to
  be issued to the Union of India (Respondent No.1) and the State of Himachal
  Pradesh (Respondent No.2) ?to take effective steps to ensure that the members of
  the Petitioner Society, and other worshippers of the Dorje Shugden are not
  harassed, attacked and otherwise maltreated by the Respondent No.3 and the
  Respondent No.4 and his adherents.? The other prayer is to restrain Respondents
  3 and 4 from inciting communal and religious hatred and making statements
  against the Petitioner Society.
  
  2. Pursuant to an order dated 8th April 2008, the petition was permitted to be
  amended. In the amended petition, the prayers remained the same. The only
  amendment was the addition of Petitioner No.2 Kundeling Rimpoche and certain
  consequential additional references to him in the petition.
  
  3. Pursuant to notice being issued in the petition, replies have been filed by
  the Respondents. The reply of Respondent No.1 points out that the affidavit in
  support of the original writ petition is dated 2nd April 2008 whereas the writ
  petition itself is dated 5th April 2008. This anomaly persists even in the
  amended petition which again has a supporting affidavit by Petitioner No.2 dated
  5th April 2008. It is pointed out that this Court has no territorial
  jurisdiction over a dispute involving Respondents 3 and 4 as in any event they
  
  
  are located in Dharamshala in Himachal Pradesh. Moreover it is for Respondent
  No.2, the State of Himachal Pradesh, to investigate the allegations against
  Respondents 3 and 4, for the alleged offences committed within the territory of
  Himachal Pradesh. It is pointed out that the dispute between the Petitioner on
  the one hand and Respondents 3 and 4 on the other pertains to matters of
  religion with which the Union of India is not concerned. It is stated that the
  Government of India does not recognise the so-called Tibetan Government in Exile
  and, therefore, the question of running a parallel government by Respondents 3
  and 4 does not arise. It is further stated that worshipers of Dorje Shugden
  have a right to freedom of religion as enshrined under Article 25 of the
  Constitution.
  
  4. An apprehension was expressed by the Petitioners that members of Petitioner
  No.1 Society were not being issued identity cards at the instance of Respondent
  No.3. By an order dated 2nd September 2009, this Court had required Respondents
  3 and 4 to file an affidavit giving details of the names and addresses of
  persons who are members of the Dorje Shugden sect and have been issued identity
  cards.
  
  5. Pursuant to the above order, an additional affidavit has been filed on behalf
  of Respondent No.3 dated 5th December 2009 categorically stating that the role
  of Respondent No.3 in the process of the Central Government issuing registration
  certificates and identity cards is merely facilitative. The details of the
  followers of the Dorje Shugden who were issued registration certificates and
  identity cards have been enclosed with the affidavit. It is stated that
  Respondent No.3 does not have the list of members of the Petitioner No.1
  Society.
  
  6. This Court has heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
  
  7. 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.
  
  8. 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. There is also no averment regarding the police in Karnataka having
  failed to take action on such complaints. Apart from the fact that this Court
  cannot possibly issue directions to the police in Karnataka, there 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. This would be a matter concerning the local police and
  administration.
  
  9. In para 24 of the writ petition, it is stated that the State of Himachal
  Pradesh is not prepared to consider any complaints made by Petitioner No.1 ?in
  respect of the violence committed against them by the supporters of Respondents
  3 and 4.? This is again a vague averment. No details are given of any such
  complaint made which has not been considered. In any event, this Court fails to
  appreciate why the Delhi High Court should issue directions to the State of
  
  
  Himachal Pradesh in relation to alleged incidents that were supposed to have
  taken place in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
  
  10. 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.
  
  11. 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.
  
  12. 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 in respect of any specific instance of inaction by
  local police or authorities on any complaint made to them by such member or
  members.
  
  13. The writ petition and the application are dismissed.
  
   S. MURALIDHAR, J.
  APRIL 05, 2010
  dn
  
  W.P.(C) No. 2222 of 2008
  Page 1 of 6
  
  
  
  $