Sporting a carefully trimmed beard, wearing ‘tilak’ on forehead, dressed immaculately, and having politeness in approach, Adv Vishnu Shankar Jain represents the present-day young Hindu who is proud of own identity and is not averse to expressing it. When he speaks, he comes across as a dynamic lawyer with a firm belief in his cause backed by research of historical as well as legal points. In the city for ‘Vidhi Manthan’ event on Sunday, Adv Jain interacted with ‘The Hitavada’ and spoke on a variety of issues in the domain of law but in the wider realm of spiritual and religious understanding of history and culture.

 

Adv Vishnu Shankar Jain and his father Adv Hari Shankar Jain are known for taking up cases pertaining to reclaiming of Hindu sites -- ranging from Taj Mahal (which they call ‘Tejomahalay’), Ram Janmabhoomi Temple at Ayodhya, Shri Krishna Mandir matter at Mathura, Gyanvapi Mosque case in Kashi, Hari Har Mandir/Shahi Masjid case in Sambhal etc. Currently, they are fighting around 150 cases. Given the religious connotations, it must be very challenging for him to stand as a counsel of Hindu side. “Indeed. It is a very challenging task on multiple fronts,” he said. According to him, as a lawyer, he has to first fight the narrative already set about a particular temple. Because of these narratives rooted in the sub-conscious, many people even have called him ‘fringe element’, ‘popularity-seeking’, ‘provocateur’ etc.

 

“Apart from fighting these slurs, I have to do historical research, bust the narratives, get over the delaying tactics. In Sambhal and Gyanvapi, we had to face crowd pressure too,” he added. If there is such a tremendous pressure, why does he choose to fight cases to ‘reclaim’ Hindu temples? He replies with an advocate’s aggression blended with passion of a devout person, “Because, temples are centres of spiritual energy. They are centres of Sanatan renaissance. Gyanvapi is the mother-board of spiritual energy as it has the prime among the Shiv Jyotirlings. I consider it my duty to fight for restoration of the cultural dignity of these centres of spiritual energy.” Adv Jain is passionately associated with the cause of reclaiming temples at Kashi and Mathura.

 

He believes that once these temples are reclaimed, they will emerge as even bigger centres of cultural renaissance and tourism than Ayodhya. But, then, many question the need for legal battles for temples and many fear that it might cause riots. “If there had been no need for reclaiming our religious, spiritual, and cultural legacy, what did Maharana Pratap, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj fight for? Their stories are still told. This highlights that there is collective consciousness about the need of the cause we have taken up,” he replied. Besides, he stressed, even if one forgot emotions and considered law, one could build case for temples. He cited references from the books written by scholars like Gopal Sastri, ‘Bharat Ratna’ P V Kane, former Chief Justice of India late B K Mukherjea to state that there were ample references available to back the basis for reclaiming the temples.

 

“We must understand a simple principle: If once a Waqf is always a Waqf, once a temple shall always be a temple,” said Adv Jain. The young lawyer went ahead explaining that the provisions in the Indian Evidence Act, Civil Procedure Code, and even Articles 13, 58, and 25 in the Constitution of India offered relevant legal dimensions ranging from taking cognisance of historical books to scientific investigation and survey to treating archaeology as a science to making void the ‘farmaan’ or orders issued by Aurangzeb for demolition of Mathura temple. Still, when it was pointed out that the Places of Worship Act was often cited by the opposing parties, Adv Vishnu Shankar Jain said that it was the ‘most misinterpreted law’ that was misused for setting certain narratives.

 

“There are provisions that make it clear that the religious character of a place of worship remains the same despite certain changes. The Act is not an obstruction in the process. But, the opposing parties are misusing it. In the process, they are acting against the right to judicial remedy, right to judicial review, and right to judicial access. All these form the Basic Structure and soul of the Constitution. But, they simply do not want to acknowledge this. Hence, in my opinion, the Places of Worship Act must undergo legal scrutiny,” elaborated the renowned lawyer. Another emerging issue, particularly in Southern India, is that of opposition to the Government control over Hindu temples. Adv Jain has challenged the endowment laws in this regard in the Supreme Court.

 

Asked about it, he replied that these laws and Government control formed discrimination against Hindus. “It is as if the Governments do not see any mismanagement in case of places of worship of other communities. Temples are essential religious functions, and the Government can have some role only in secular activity like ensuring security, crowd management, ‘prasadam’ quality etc. However, Government cannot take control of temples,” he added. With this, he concluded the conversation. Recalling that he had come previously as a participant in the moot court competition in a law college in Nagpur during his student days, Adv Vishnu Shankar Jain said that he was happy about visiting the city several times. “Now, I am invited as a speaker and expert,” he said with a hearty parting laughter. 

 

 

Commenting on the raging controversy over the Waqf Amendment Bill, Adv Vishnu Shankar Jain expresses displeasure over the Bill. He dubbed the Bill as ‘incomplete’ and ‘bogus’ since it ‘did not address the problem’. “In my opinion, the Waqf law must be repealed in entirety, and 12 lakh acres of Waqf land must be reverted to original owners. Also, Waqf should be treated as a trust and registered as per the rules,” he stressed. Asked about the concerns of riots breaking out in the country, he said bluntly that the fear of riots was akin to admitting the existence of problem. Besides, he questioned, should the judiciary, Parliament, police shy away from taking lawful actions because of this fear? “If the problem is not dealt with today, it will grow bigger in future,” he remarked.