In a temporary relief to former acharya of Vadtal diocese of Swaminarayan sect Ajendraprasad Pande, the Gujarat High Court has stayed a decree passed by a Nadiad court which provided that he cannot remain an acharya pursuant to a resolution passed during the Satsang Mahasabha for his removal on May 11, 2002. The Nadiad court issued the decree in August, 2018, against which Ajendraprasad has moved the high court.
The division bench of justice Harsha Devani and justice AS Supehia provided the relief to Ajendraprasad till his petition against his removal from the office of acharya is decided by the court. Notably, the trial court not just passed the decree against the deposed acharya, but also issued a directive not to enjoy any right as acharya. The lower court also restrained him or his supporters from entering any Shikharbandh temples or Harimandirs under the Vadtal seat at Vadtal, Gadhda, and Junagadh Pradesh. He was also restricted to carry out satsang, 'dhun', or organise any meeting without the permission of the Temple Managing Trustee Board or the state government.
Following the division bench's order, Ajendraprasad is protected to the extent that no further action can be initiated against him on the basis of the decree. The bench, however, did not restore his position as former acharya so as to enable him to enjoy the rights associated with the position, but he can visit the religious sites as a commoner.
The court has pointed out in its order that the restrictions imposed on deposed acharya is based on the decree, a declaratory one, which would have serious consequences, if not stayed. Interestingly, the respondents in the petition—Swami Keshav Prakashdas Guru Narayan Priyadasji and Janakbhai Patel—had stated before the court that they intend to initiate further action against Ajendraprasad based on the the decree and the same should not be stayed.
The bench while admitting Ajendraprasad's appeal said: "The court is of the view that in view of the settled legal position, the judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended; more so, when the appeal has been admitted."
