Jain temples’ restoration: Contempt plea filed against chief secretary

Petitioner says Navid Akram Cheema did not meet him despite LHC’s order.


Our Correspondent May 30, 2014
A file photo of the Lahore High Court. PHOTO: LHC.GOV.PK

LAHORE:


A lawyer on Thursday filed a contempt of court petition against the chief secretary (CS) alleging that he had violated the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) order by not meeting him on the issue of restoration of Jain temples in Lahore and Gujranwala.


Advocate Jawaid Iqbal Jafri said Justice Mansoor Ali Shah of the LHC had directed the CS, Navid Akram Cheema, to meet him on May 26, discuss the matter and issue an order within a month.

Jafri said he had gone to meet Cheema but he was not available.

He said the chief secretary had committed contempt of court and should be tried under the relevant law.

On May 23, Justice Shah took up a petition on the restoration of Jain temples and issued notices to the functionaries of federal and provincial governments.

The petitioner had informed the court that butchers had opened shops in a Jain temple in Gujranwala which was not only part of the architectural and cultural heritage but also the worship place of a religious minority.

He said the heritage was being dismantled, distorted and maligned.

He said he had sent many complaints to the authorities since 1985 but no action had been taken.

The lawyer said Jains were peace-loving, non-violent and hardworking people. He said the Jain temple in Lahore’s Old Anarkali locality had also been grossly violated and land mafia with political backing had opened shops there. Jain temples in other parts of the country were also being desecrated and violated, he said. Jafri said Jains and Hindus should be allowed to visit their temples and perform their rituals.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 30th, 2014.

COMMENTS (1)

Stranger | 9 years ago | Reply

The building in the pic definitly does not look like any temple .

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ