Closure Of One Gate Is Not Obstruction, Says MP High Court

Indore (Madhya Pradesh): Principal bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur on Wednesday refused to accept closure of one gate of a facility as obstruction with disposing of a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought directions to the Government District Hospital in Khandwa to grant unrestricted access to the public for visiting a Shiv Temple and Hazrat Syed Chand Shah Wali Mazar located within its premises.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed that while one of the hospital gates had been closed for security reasons, access to the religious sites remained available through an alternative route.

‘Come from the other route. Why should they open the hospital to the public? It is done for the safety and security of the hospital. Your way to the temple and mazar is not blocked; if you want to visit the religious places, use the other gate,’ the bench remarked during the hearing.

The PIL, filed through Advocate Nitin Jain, contended that until December 2024, all hospital gates were open, enabling free access to the religious sites for the general public. The petitioner argued that closing the main gate amounted to an ‘arbitrary closure’ of a public road, causing hardship to devotees who now had to take a longer route and violating their fundamental rights.

In response, the State Government submitted that no blockade to the religious sites had been imposed. The government counsel clarified that only one gate had been closed for administrative and security reasons, while an alternative access remained available.

Rejecting the petitioner’s claims of undue restriction, the court underscored that the hospital land belongs to the government facility and it is not obligated to allow unrestricted public entry merely for religious purposes.

‘Anyone visiting the hospital may visit the religious site located therein. The hospital is not obligated to allow unrestricted public access to its premises,’ the court stated, adding that visitors to the hospital compound can still access both the temple and the mazar.

The bench ultimately held that in view of the State’s clarification that access had not been denied but merely rerouted, no further directions were warranted. It disposed of the petition accordingly.