Jharkhand High Court: In a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) filed by Jyot, a religious trust, seeking to protect the sanctity of the Parasnath Hill in the Giridih District of the State of Jharkhand, the Division Bench of M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ* and Deepak Roshan, J., while allowing the PIL, directed strict enforcement of the Union of India’s Office Memorandum dated 05-01-2023 (“2023 Office Memorandum”) which while recognizing the sanctity of Parasnath Hill and its significance for the Jain community, directed ban on liquor, non-vegetarian food, injuries to animals and stay on tourism and eco-tourism activities on the Hill.
Background
Parasnath Hill holds immense religious importance for Jains, serving as a pivotal pilgrimage site. It is to Jainism what the Ram Janma Bhoomi is to Hindus, Bodh Gaya is to Buddhists, the Golden Temple is to Sikhs, Mecca is to Muslims, and the Vatican is to Catholic Christians. For centuries, the Jains have revered the entire Parasnath Hill as the most sacred place of worship and it is considered a “Mahatirtha” by Jains. This belief stems from the conviction that 20 of the 24 Tirthankaras and numerous Munis achieved nirvana there.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change by notification dated 02-08-2019 (“2019 Notification”) designated an eco-sensitive zone around Parasnath Hill. Further, it directed the Central Government and the State Government to specify other additional measures to give effect to this notification. Hence, the 2023 Office Memorandum was brought in under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, recognizing the significance and sanctity of Parasnath Hill for the Jain community and directing the State Government to take all necessary measures for the protection of the hill including the prohibition of, “(…) amongst others, activities such as the selling of liquor, drugs and other intoxicants; playing loud music or use loudspeakers; defiling sites of religious and cultural significance such as sacred monuments, lakes, rocks, caves, and shrines, damaging flora or fauna; causing environmental pollution; committing injurious acts to forests, water bodies, plants, animals, or disturbing the natural tranquility of such sites; coming with pet animals; and unauthorized camping and trekking on the Hill”.
The 2023 Office Memorandum also directed a stay on “tourism and eco-tourism activities on the hill”.
Court’s Analysis vis-a-vis preserving Parasnath Hill’s sanctity
The Court began by pointing out that restrictions on certain activities or practices at places of religious importance are not a new practice and have been upheld by Courts in multiple cases.
The Court relied on Nar Hari Shastri v. Shri Badrinath Temple Committee (1952) 1 SCC 689 wherein the Supreme Court had upheld probation on the right of pandas (guides) to accompany the pilgrims and receive gifts from them inside the precincts of the Badrinath Temple. The Court further noted the decision in M. Seetharaman v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department 2022 SCC Online Mad 5656, wherein the Madras High Court placed reliance on Nar Hari Shastri (Supra) and upheld the ban on the use of mobile phones in the Temple premises.
Further in Tirumala Merchants Welfare Petitioners Association v. State of A.P. 1998 SCC Online AP 504, the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the State Government’s action of prohibiting possession, use, or consumption of cigarettes including beedis and chuttas in the entire Tirumala Hills area. Thein Andhra Pradesh High Court had held that, “Such a restriction is a reasonable restriction aimed at not only preserving the sanctity of the place but also respecting the religious sentiments of the Hindu Community”.
The Court acknowledged other relevant Government orders designating religious sites as sacred and thereby mandating their protection. The seven hills of Tirumala, including the shrine of Lord Venkateswara were designated as “Tirumala Divya Kshetram”, directing the civic administration to preserve its sanctity. Similarly, the State of Sikkim notified certain sacred peaks, caves, rocks, lakes, etc. as sacred Buddhist sites for protection. The District Magistrate in Jammu and Kashmir had prohibited the “sale/possession/consumption of tobacco products including Gutkha” around the Mata Vaishno Devi temple to maintain its sanctity.
The Court noted the counter affidavit filed by the Tourism Department of Jharkhand which stated that “eco-tourism would be conducted as per the tourism master plan and will be a component of zonal master plan and applicable only in the Eco-sensitive Zone outside the sanctuary and Parasnath Hill area. It is stated that the plan will adhere to Central and State environmental laws and guidelines as well as the needs and aspirations of the people and their cultural and religious faith”.
The Court noted that the Union of India had stayed the Eco-Tourism activities. It further noted the State Government’s intention to develop Parasnath Hill as a place for religious pilgrimage as per the Jharkhand Tourism Policy, 2021, and not as a commercial tourist place. It was the responsibility of the Tourism Department to provide facilities/amenities to religious tourists.
The Court, taking note of the tourist activities such as wandering for leisure, setting up hotels, jungle-safari, business activities such as shops, dining facilities, industries, and construction for non-religious purposes, and keeping in mind the 2023 Office Memorandum, expressed its inability to understand that how the State Government can act contrary to it and continue to treat the Parasnath Hill as a Tourist place all while permitting these activities.
The Court observed that the petitioner was correct in contending that “the language of the 2023 Office Memorandum is broad enough to cover all types of tourism including eco-tourism as well as religious tourism and that both are prohibited.” The Court further observed that mining activities and polling booth set-ups cannot be permitted under the 2019 Notification and the 2023 Office Memorandum.
The Court opined that merely informing the locals about the prohibition of consumption of non-vegetarian food and alcohol at Parasnath Hill, may not suffice and strict enforcement of the 2019 notification and the 2023 Office Memorandum is necessary. On placement of 25 home guards for enforcing the prohibitions across 16000 acres of Parasnath Hill, the Court said, “We cannot expect such a small number of Home Guards to ensure compliance with the restrictions/prohibitions”.
The Court noted that the present PIL is only concerned with Parasnath Hill/village and not the entire area of Parasnath Eco-Sensitive Zone. The Court opined that there were no other villages on Parasnath Hill because had they existed on it, the notification would have mentioned it.
The Court further noted that the 2023 Office Memorandum prohibits causing injury to animals on Parasnath Hill and hence hunting and sacrifice of animals cannot be permitted. Parasnath Hill is part of a Wildlife Sanctuary and Section 9 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 prohibits hunting of wild animals specified in Schedules I to IV. Further, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the rules framed thereunder restrict animal sacrifice and cruelty. The Court after considering these noted that “there is a legal framework in force banning hunting and restricting animal sacrifice”.
On the issue of illegal construction on Parasnath Hill, the Court pointed out that the notices issued by State authorities to remove encroachment on Parasnath Hill were issued only after the filing of this PIL and that these notices were issued for encroachment in Madhuvan village which is at the foot of the Parasnath Hill and not a part of the Hill itself. The Court said this matter required further verification.
On the issue of Parasnath Hill being an important religious place for the worship of ‘Marang Budu’, the Hill deity for the Santhal tribe and that the Jain community was trying to interfere with tribal rights and practices under the garb of PIL, the Court took note of the petitioner’s assurance of fully respecting the Tribal rights and practices.
After noting all the abovementioned scenarios, the Court issued the following directions:
-
All authorities must strictly enforce the 2019 Notification and the 2023 Office Memorandum.
-
The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Giridih, to visit Parasnath Hill and verify the presence of schools/Anganwadi and any mining activities and count and categorize existing structures (commercial/residential, government/private) and confirm their construction with proper permissions.
-
The Superintendent of Police, Giridih to increase the number of home guards on Parasnath Hill to ensure effective implementation of the directives.
[Jyot v. The State of Jharkhand, W.P. (PIL) No. 231 of 2025, decided on 02-05-2025]
*Judgment byJustice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice, Jharkhand High Court
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Darius Khambata, Sr. Advocate; Percival Billimoria, Sr. Advocate, Indrajit Sinha, Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Shubham Kataruka, Khusboo Kataruka, Advocates
For the respondents: Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General and Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
A nice judgement delivered over the issue by the Honorable Jharkhand High Court. Need to maintain sanctity of the Parasnath Hill and the temples.