Shri Antariksha Parsvanath Case
By Unexhibited
Summary
The Shri Antariksha Parsvanath Case (1929) revolves around a religious dispute between the Digambari and Swetambari sects of Jainism over the management and form of the idol of Shri Antariksha Parsvanath in the Shirpur temple. The Swetambaris, who traditionally worship idols draped in ornaments, claimed exclusive ownership and management rights, asserting the idol’s self-existent waistband and covered state as central to their religious practice. In 1908, Digambaris, who worship idols in nudity, chiselled off the alleged waistband and removed ornaments, leading to a lawsuit by Swetambaris seeking damages, injunctions, and confirmation of their management rights. The case escalated into a prolonged legal battle, with the Swetambaris arguing that the idol’s original form and temple management had always been under their control, while the Digambaris countered that the temple historically belonged to them and that the waistband was an artificial addition from plastering. The dispute also involved claims over historical arrangements allowing limited Digambari worship under Swetambari supervision until 1908, when alleged mismanagement by Swetambari officials prompted the Digambaris to act. The Privy Council ultimately ruled in favor of the Swetambaris, affirming their exclusive management rights and the idol’s original covered state as per their religious traditions. The judgment emphasized the primacy of historical evidence and sectarian practices in resolving the conflict, marking a significant precedent in religious property disputes.
Conclusion
This landmark case underscores the complex interplay between religious doctrine and legal rights within indigenous communities, particularly concerning sacred spaces and artifacts. The Privy Council’s adjudication of the Shri Antariksha Parsvanath idol dispute between Digambari and Swetambari Jains highlights the challenges of reconciling deeply entrenched sectarian practices with evolving legal frameworks. The judgment reinforces the principle that religious customs, even when rooted in centuries of tradition, must yield to judicial scrutiny when they conflict with substantive legal claims. The ruling’s emphasis on historical continuity and sectarian rights sets a critical precedent for managing interdenominational disputes within India’s pluralistic framework, balancing communal autonomy with the rule of law. The case remains a seminal reference in jurisprudence involving religious property and doctrinal conflicts, illustrating the delicate equilibrium required to uphold both faith-based traditions and legal integrity.