HC extends protection for Vile Parle Jain Temple amid demolition row

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) on Wednesday extended the status quo order on a Jain temple in Vile Parle East, restraining the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) from taking any further action against the religious structure. A status quo order is a legal directive that maintains the existing state of affairs, preventing either party from making changes until the court hears the matter in detail.

The temple, built in 1962 and managed by the Shree 1008 Digambar Jain Mandir Trust, has been at the centre of a controversy after the BMC declared it illegal and partially demolished it on April 15. The civic body claims the 2,200 sq ft structure stands on land earmarked as a recreational ground in the city’s development plan.

The demolition was carried out within hours after a stay order granted by the Bombay City Civil Court expired. On April 7, the lower court had dismissed the trust’s plea against the demolition but gave interim protection for seven days to allow the trust time to appeal to the High Court. That protection ended on April 15, just a day before the civic action.

The BMC’s move triggered outrage in the Jain community. On April 19, thousands participated in a silent rally, accusing the civic body of acting under pressure from private interests. Protesters claimed the demolition was influenced by the owners of the adjacent Ramkrishna Hotel, who allegedly sought to expand their operations within the housing society.

On April 22, the Maharashtra State Minority Commission conducted a site inspection and criticised the BMC for acting hastily and using excessive force. The commission directed the civic body to initiate action against all unauthorised structures in the area—not just the temple.

The temple trust had urgently approached the high court on April 16, seeking to halt further demolition. However, by the time the matter came up for hearing, the BMC had already razed most of the structure. In court, the BMC stated that only two walls, measuring 15 feet and 7 feet in length and 10 feet in height, remained standing.

Justice Gauri Godse, who is hearing the case, noted on Wednesday that there was considerable confusion surrounding the civic notices served prior to the demolition. The court observed that it could not proceed without proper clarification from the concerned counsel, who was unable to provide basic facts during the hearing.

“Ad-interim protection already granted shall continue till the next date,” Justice Godse said, adjourning the matter to May 5.