Temple Protection Bill Rejected in J&K Assembly; Govt Cites Existing Safeguards, Debate Rekindles Questions on Past Encroachments.

Upendra Bharti | HENB | Jammu | March 31, 2026:: In a development that has sparked political and social debate, the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly on Monday rejected a private member’s Bill seeking protection and restoration of Hindu temples across the Union Territory. The proposal had specifically aimed to address concerns over alleged encroachments and damage to religious sites during the peak years of militancy in the Valley.

The Bill was introduced by BJP legislator Balwant Singh Mankotia, who argued that a structured legal framework was necessary to safeguard and restore temples that were left vulnerable during the period of unrest. He said the legislation sought “to provide for the protection of temples and retrieval of illegally occupied land in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir,” emphasizing the need for institutional mechanisms to reclaim encroached religious properties.

Defending the intent behind the proposal, Mankotia underlined that large-scale displacement during Jihadi militancy had left many Hindu religious sites unattended, making them susceptible to encroachment, damage and destruction. According to him, the Bill was designed to institutionalise safeguards and ensure systematic restoration of such sites.

However, the proposal was opposed by the ruling dispensation, with Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Choudhary asserting that existing laws were sufficient to protect all religious institutions in the region. He maintained that the Union Territory’s strength lay in its tradition of communal harmony and equal respect for all faiths.

Choudhary said, “I am part of the government. I take pride in representing the legacy of National Conference president Farooq Abdullah, who has always stood for all religions and visited temples, mosques, gurdwaras and churches. Wherever he went, people of every faith felt he belonged to them.”

Reiterating the government’s position, he added that whenever the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference has been in power, all religious institutions have been protected. He further stressed that no one has the right to encroach upon sacred places and that no government has ever permitted such actions.

Highlighting the current administration’s stance, Choudhary said the government led by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah remains committed to safeguarding temples, mosques, gurdwaras and churches alike. “This is the true essence and beauty of Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, I do not believe there is a need for this Bill,” he stated, reiterating that adequate institutional safeguards already exist.

However, Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Choudhary did not clarify why, despite the existence of legal safeguards, several temples and non-Muslim religious establishments were targeted and damaged by jihadist forces during the period of turmoil, when non-Muslim communities faced severe persecution and were driven out of the Valley.

Despite the assurances, the debate brought renewed focus on the historical context of temple destruction, damage and encroachments during the militancy period. Questions were raised over why, despite the presence of legal provisions at the time, several temples and non-Muslim religious establishments were allegedly attacked or fell into disrepair amid widespread violence and displacement of non-Muslim communities from the Valley.

With Mankotia declining to withdraw the Bill, Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather put the proposal to a voice vote, following which it was rejected by the House.

The proceedings were part of a broader legislative agenda, as the Assembly witnessed a total of 33 private members’ Bills on the day. Of these, nine were taken up for discussion. While six Bills were withdrawn by their movers, two—including the temple protection proposal—were rejected after being pressed for consideration. Discussion on one Bill could not take place as the House adjourned for the day.

The rejection of the Bill has now set the stage for continued political debate, with differing perspectives emerging over whether existing legal frameworks are adequate or whether targeted legislation is required to address legacy issues linked to religious properties affected during one of the most turbulent phases in Jammu and Kashmir’s history.
..
_Agency Inputs.