MUMBAI: The Bombay high court recently gave Ambernath residents, who were opposing the state government’s proposal for a Muslim burial ground in the vicinity of an 11th century Shiva temple , a lesson on the Indian Constitution and secular values. The petitioners had raised the spectre of communal tension if the court did not halt the government notification in April to reserve the plot in Kailash Colony, located between Ambernath and Ulhasnagar , for a kabrastan .“The argument that if the court does not interfere with the reservation (of land for burial ground), communal tension will be created is to be deprecated,” said a division bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Riyaz Chagla. The bench pointed out that it was concerned only with the merits of the case and the legality and validity of the decision. “India is a Secular Democratic Republic. The petitioners have to respect the ideals of the Constitution as required by Article 51-A (a). If by virtue of lawful orders of the court…communal tension is created, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that such a situation does not arise. We must reiterate that a court of law does not get impress by such submissions,” said the bench and dismissed the petition.Article 51 - A (a) states that it is the right of every Indian citizen to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions.Since years, Muslims in Ulhasnagar have been demanding a burial ground in the town as they have to take the deceased to a kabrastan over 5km away. In April, the state government issued a notification reserving three plots in Ulhasnagar in the development plan (DP) for kabrastans, including one at Kailash Colony. They claimed the plot is located at a distance of over 200m from an 11th century Shiva temple and a ghat where Ganpati immersions are held. They moved HC and said if the court failed to strike down the notification, there could be communal tension in the area.Unimpressed with the contention, the HC said: “It is not the case (of the petitioners) that devotees visiting the temple or the ghat are required to approach them through the plot reserved for the burial ground. The purpose of reserving the land is also a public one. It is not the case that a burial ground is not needed in the city.” The court pointed out that the preparation and sanction of the DP was an elaborate process under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, which included inviting objections and suggestions before publishing the plot reservations. So, the opportunity of being heard was granted to the petitioners, the bench said. The court said it was not the case of the petitioners that the place they were occupying was reserved for a burial ground. Even if their houses were affected by the reservation, the court said the state would have to follow due process before vacating the plot.