The encroachment over the religious rights of the Hindus through the temple was first introduced by the British Colonizers who discovered that the Hindu religious institutions consists of enormous wealth and socio-political significance. It is pertinent to mention here that in the historical era the Cholas, Pallawas, pandyas, Vijayanagara Empire, Marathas have made significant contributions to the aesthetic and cultural development of temples in South Asia. Significant to underline herein that Temples have always worked for the cohesion of the Hindu Community which was then understood by the Britishers and therefore with the intent to dismantle Hindu ideology and to grow Christian Missionary efforts, it became necessary for them to dismantle Hindu Temple ecosystem. Madras Regulation VII was passed in 1817 so as to take over the administration of the temples in South India. Similar legislations then further enacted in different parts of Bharat with the same intentions such as Regulation XIX in Bengal, 1810 and in Bombay, 1827.
British Involvement in Hindu temples soon invited controversies as the ruling establishment in England believed that managing “heathen” institutions is against the tenants of Christianity and therefore they ordered the colonial government to withdraw their administrations over Hindu Religious Institutions following which in 1833 the British Government withdrew their administration and handed over to the Trustees and Mutts. The Religious Endowment Act of 1863 facilitated the process by transferring the administration of Hindu Temples. But in a short span of time “Madras Religious Charitable and Endowment Act” of 1925 was enacted and the Hindu Temples again came under the administration and management of Government. In 1927 the amendment was brought in the title of the Act and it was re- introduced as Madras Hindu Religious and Endowment Act of 1927. It is vital to mention here in that in 1925 “Sikh Gurudwara Act” was enacted under which independent management of Gurudwara was given to Sikh Community but the management of Hindu Temples were remaining under the garb of Government.
Post-Independence Period:
Within Four years of the Bharat gained independence the Madras government enacted the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act of 1951, this Act replaced the Religious Endowment Boards with Government department namely Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. The concerned department was led by the Commissioner who took charge of secular activities of Mandirs, which were unconstitutionally governed by the interference of the state against the fabric of constitutional provisions of Bharat.
Government Taking Arbitrarily Control of Temples and Legal Scenario:
It is shocking to witness that the provisions of 1951 Act were being challenged before the Madras High Court and later in the Supreme Court in the case of “Shirur Mutt Case” which speaks of the autonomy and rights of the religious institutions, especially Hindu Mutts, managing of the affairs without the interference of the Government. Shirur Mutt case is the landmark verdict in the domain of arbitrarily interference of the State in managing the affairs of Hindu Temples. The Hon’ble Madras High Court strikes down nearly 20 sections of the Act of 1951 as unconstitutional and violating the Fundamental Rights of Hindus. Thereafter the Appeal was filed by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and refused to compliance with the order of the High Court so as to exit from the administration of 50 prominent Hindu Temples. The brief of the case is provided below:
The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowment Madras Vs. Shri Laxmindar Tirtha Swamiyar of Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005
The case addressed constitutional issues related to religious freedom under Article 25 and religious denominations under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. The Court pronounced judgment on dated 16.03.1954. it was held by the Hon’ble Court that “Madhadhipati is indeed not a corporate entity; he serves as the leader of a spiritual community and, by virtue of his position, has responsibilities akin to a religious teacher. It is his duty to uphold and spread the religious beliefs he adheres to. If any law inhibits him from disseminating his doctrines, it would contravene Article 25.” Thus it is very clear that Article 25 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in support of institutions.
Whereas subject to the applicability of Article 26 of the Constitution of India the Hon’ble Apex Court held that specific math in question was under the control of the Sivalli Brahmins, who constituted a segment of Madhwacharya’s followers, the founder of these maths. And therefore, it is clear that Article 26 extends protection not only to religious denominations but also to sections thereof. Consequently, the apex court affirmed that the math fell under the purview of Article 26.
It is therefore Hon’ble Apex court vide their judgement is the Shirur Mutt case made clear that Article 25 of the Constitution not only protects the freedom of religious opinion but at the same time it also protects the acts done in the pursuance of a religion also the Hon’ble Apex Court made firmly clear that financial resources are required for the practice of religious customs and such expenditures should be considered part of “matter of religion” and therefore these activities should not be regarded as economic, commercial or political in character as provided under Article 25(2)(a).
It was shocking to witness that the Madras Government irrespective of compliance of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement arbitrarily passed another law “Tamil Nadu Hindu religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959” reintroduced Sections previously held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court which is thus the blatant violation of the Hon’ble Court verdict. The Act of 1959 also faced protests by the Hindu Community and also being challenged several times before the Hon’ble Court questioning the validity of the Act. The Act of 1959 raised a diect violation of the Supreme Court verdict also it was a mockery of the “Principle of Equal Treatment for all Citizens” enshrined under our Constitution.
Dr Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others
The Apex court expressed its firm support towards the administration of a property by a religious denomination stating that the control and management of a religious property must remain with the ones bestowed with the authority and responsibility to maintain and administer. It was further held by the Hon’ble Court that even if the management of a temple is taken over to remedy the evil, the management must be handed over to the person concerned immediately after the evil stands remedied. It was also ordered by the Hon’ble Court that Super-session of rights of administration cannot be of a permanent enduring nature. Its life has to be reasonably fixed so as to be co-terminus with the removal of the consequences of maladministration. The reason is that the objective to take over the management and administration is not the removal and replacement of the existing administration but to rectify and stump out the consequences of maladministration. Power to regulate does not mean power to supersede the administration for indefinite period. Thereafter the Hon’ble Apex Court while allowing the Special Leave petitioner quashed and set aside the Tamil Nadu Government Order which had mandated the Government takeover of the hallowed Sri Sabhyanagar Temple (known as Natraja Temple).
The Chief Secretary & Anr Vs. The Director Archeological Survey of India & Others
The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that the State Government or the Commissioner of the HR&CE department, who are the Trustee/administrator of the temple lands, shall not alienate or give away the land contrary to the wish of the donor. The lands shall always remain with the temples. The ‘public purpose theory’ shall not be invoked in cases of temple lands over which the interest of the community people of the religious denomination generally rests.”
Temple funds must first be used for maintenance of temples:
The Madras High Court emphasised that temple funds must first be used in the maintenance of temples, conducting festivals, and making payment to the staff. “In case of surplus funds, the same shall be utilized for attending the repair and maintenance of other temples in the state as specified under the HR&CE Act and the Rules framed there under and for propaganda of the tenets of all or any of the religious institutions under the HR&CE Act,” the Court added.
Govt cannot use temple land for any purposes other than religious functions
In a significant observation, the Madras High Court had held that the state government could not use temple land for any purpose other than for holding religious functions. The Madras High Court emphasised that temple land could be utilized only for the beneficial purposes of the temple. It was also directed by the Hon’ble Court that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department to identify and protect all temples lands from encroachers.
Sri Marthanda Varma & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2020)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India completely returned the control of Shri Padmanbhswamy Temple to the Royal family. The Hon’ble Court while restoring the rights of the temple to the royal family directed the formation of an Advisory Committee and an Adm nitrative Committee of which all members must be Hindus. The Court also ordered that these two committees must preserve all treasures and properties endowed to the Deity and belonging of the temples.
T.R. Ramesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (24.08.2021)
The Madras High Court in the very case held that the state Government or the Commissioner of the HR&CE department, who are the Trustee/administrator of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ temple lands, shall not alienate or give away the lands contrary to the wish of the donor. The lands shall always remain with the temples. The public purpose theory shall not be invoked in cases of temple lands over which the interest of the community people of the religious denomination generally rests. It was also held by the Hon’ble Court that the encroachment and illegal constructions in the protected area, archaeological sites, temple lands, etc., must immediately be removed.
T.G.Mohan Das Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Bench of Hon’ble Justice P.R. Ramchandra and Devan Ramchandranan of Hon’ble Court of Kerala has passed sound judgement in the very case directing that the appointments to Devsaswom Boards in Kerala, which control, administer and rule the temples are riddled with secrecy and the Government change it with immediate effect. It was also mentioned by the Hon’ble Court that Temples in Kerala have been the Kamdhenus or Holy Cows of political parties in the state.
Government Control of Hindu Temples is a violation of Constitutional Provisions:
The constitution of India guarantees the protection of fundamental rights enshrined under the language by the framers. Being the Supreme law of land, it sets out certain laws protecting the citizens from unlawful interference of the government. At the same time it protects the Right to Equality under Article 14 and safeguards from discrimination on the basis of religion under Article 15. The interference and control of Hindu Temples by the Government is a clear and blatant violation of the provisions of the Indian Constitution by violating Article 14, 15, 25 and 26.
Article 14 and Article 15:
Article 14 of the Constitution of India gurantees the right to equality to every citizen of India and prohibits unreasonable discrimination. It is mentioned herein that the Article deals with two factors “Equality Before the Law” and “Equal Protection of the law” which hereby means that equals are treated equally and unequals are treated unequally. When we talk of Article applibaility it brings “Reasonable classification” which must not be arbitrary or evasive. Reasonable classification must be based on intelligible diffrentia for that there must be nexus with the act and shall not supersede the statue.
EP Rayappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court while delivering the judgement in the very case held down the concept of Equality. Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice Chandrachud stated that “Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be cribbed, cabined and confined”. Therefore, it can be said that equality is a antithesis to arbitrariness.
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union Of India
….Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot with imprisoned. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality.
While taking the illegal and arbitrary interference of the state in Hindu Temples is clearly a violation of Article 14. They are violating the very principle of reasonable classification and leaving other religious institutions from management and control and discriminately controlling Hindu religious institutions. While considering Article 15 clearly states that State shall not discriminate any citizen on basis of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth.
Article 25 and Article 26:
The Constitution of India provides Freedom to profess, practice and propogate religion under Article 25 whereas Article 26 provides for the freedom to manage religious affairs. It is important to understand herein that Article 25 of the Constitution provides the right to “practice” religion. Article 25 is provided below:
25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—
(a)regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which maybe associated with religious practice
(b)providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
It can be seen from the fundamental right provided in the above article that the constitution provides for right to “Practice” religion. Freedom to profess consist of all the activities prescribed and sanctioned by that religion with certain restrictions. It is submitted that in order to ensure that the properties belonging to various religious denominations are administered along with all essential rites and rituals. The above Article provides the right to “practice” religion which shall be read along with Article 26 of the Constitution which extends the right to manage “religious affairs”. The concerned article is hereby provided:
26. Freedom to manage religious affairs
Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right—
(a)to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
(b)to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
(c)to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
(d)to administer such property in accordance with law.
Editorial Comment – Article 26 provides for the freedom to manage the religious affairs of the citizens and is subject to Public order, morality and health.
It is hereby can be reflect that as per Article 25 of the constitution when the right to practice religion is provided then it must cover the right to administer so as to manage the affairs of the religious denominations and therefore both the articles must be read together to have the effective and constitutional exercise of the fundamental rights. For the applicability of both the Articles “religious denominations” need to be settled and proved. The question now arises whether the institutions are denomination temple or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the very case of Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt defines the term “Denomination” as provided:
“Denomination is “a collection of individuals, classed together under the same name; now almost always specifically, specially a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization and designated by a distinctive name.”
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India and Others, 1983 SCR (1) 729.
The Court further settled the law subject to Denomination in the very case by stating that the Body having (Common faith, Common Organization, Distinctive name) considered to be Religious Denomination.
It is therefore submitted herein that the framers of Indian Constitution were clear with their intention that for the establishment of religious and charitable institutions, it is very much vital to have the rights to freely manage and administer through Article 26 of the Constitution. It is therefore submitted that to administer the religious practices under Article 26 of the Constitution the owners of the Religious Denomination must own an acquire the same and therefore it was held by the Hon’ble apex court that the funds of the temple is not economic in nature but to have proper effective administration and management of the Hindu Temple.
Religious denomination right to administer its property:
Under Article 26 (d), it is the religious denomination itself which has been given the right to administer its property in accordance with the law. Article 26(d) of the Constitution provides as:
“(d) to administer such property in accordance with law”
In the case of Commissioner Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Swaminar, it was stated that any law, which overpowers or takes away any right of administration as a whole from any religious denomination and vests it in any other secular authority, it would stand strictly in violation of the right guaranteed by Article 26 (d) of the Constitution.
K. Mukundarya Shenoy vs. The State of Mysore, 1959 Mys. L.J. 709
In the very case the court has considered the right to administration of a religious denomination temple. The court duly ruled that a law which takes away the right of administration from the hands of a religious denomination altogether and vests it in any other authority would amount to violation of right guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India.
Deity is the Owner of the Property and Pujari is the Manager:
State of M.P. vs. Ghanshyamdas, 1999 (RN) 235
It was held by the Hon’ble Court that Pujaris had no right to alienate the properties of the temple. They have rights only with respect to either cultivate the land or get it cultivated through servants. The High Court further held that if the temple was managed by the Pujari, then keeping in view the law laid down from time to time, his name was required to be mentioned as Pujari along with the name of the deity. Pujaris have no right to alienate the properties of the temple. They have to cultivate the land or to get the land cultivated through their servants for the maintenance of temple and also perform the daily rituals. They do not acquire any right to alienate the property of the temple.
State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. mandir Shri Khande Rao, 1999 RN 392
The Hon’ble Court held that, with respect to the State’s right to auction property of the temple, once the land is vested with the deity/temple, the State cannot have a right to auction the property of the temple.
The State of M.P. Vs. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti & Anr.
Hon’ble Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice A.S. Bopna of the Hon’be Supreme Court of India held that the ownership column, the name of the deity alone is required to be mentioned, as the deity being a juristic person is the owner of the land. The occupation of the land is also by the deity which is carried out by the servant or the managers on behalf of the deity.
It is therefore can be considered that the ownership of the temples lied solely with the Deity and therefore the Deity holds the category of juristic person in law. The Pujaris or priest are being provided with the power to manage the property on behalf of Deity within the ambit of law. When we speak of “within the ambit of law” we hereby means the restriction provided under Article 26 of the constitution of India. It is therefore must not be against the Public Order, Morality and Health. It is therefore until the owner of the property does not transfer the ownership of the temple to any authority till then any kind of interference is the violation of the law as has been settled by the various judgement of the Hon’ble Court and therefore the control of Hindu Temples by the state is nothing but the violation of the law of the land.
State Control of Hindu Temples is Against Secular Fabric of The Nation:
The term Secularism has been added in the Constitution of India by 42nd Amendment in 1976, which reflects that the State has no religion meaning thereby that the State cannot declare any religion as the State religion. It also directs the state not to discriminate between the religions and shall treat every religion equally without Interfering in the practice of any religion. There are two aspects covered by Secularism, first there is absolute separation between state and religion, where the state does not interfere with its practice. The second aspect is State which treats all the religion equally without discrimination. The concept of Secularism which has been duly implicit in the preamble of the Constitution becoming the basic feature of the Nation declares the resolve of the people to secure tp all citizens “liberty” to though, belief, faith and worship
Vasudev Vs. Vamanji, ILR 1881 Bom. 80
The court held that in India a secular state was never considered as an irreligious or a asthetic state. It only states that in the matter of religion it is neutral. It is the ancient doctrine in India that the State protects all religions but interferes with none.
M.P Gopalakrishnan Nair and Anr. V State of Kerala, AIR 2005 11 SCC 45.
Supreme court held that the Constitution clearly prohibits the State to be a Theocratic one. Secularism does not mean the constitution of Atheist society but means equal status of all religions without any favoritism.
S.R. Bomani Vs. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918
The Supreme Court held that “Secularism is the basic structure of the Constitution”. The state treats equally all religious and religious denominations. Religion is the matter of individual faith and cannot be mixed with secular activities. It was also held by the Hon’ble Court that in the matter of religion the state is neutral and treats every religion equally.
It is relevant to mention herein that the Hindu temples are being taxed while minority religious establishments are given free pass by the governments.
It is further submitted that the money that is being fetched by the arbitrary control of Hindu Temples by state inevitably ends up funding minority specific schemes. Provided below are the recent examples of misusing of funds looted by Government:
1. Karnataka: As per reports of India Facts 2016, the then Karnataka Government spent crores of rupees for the support and expansion of Christianity, including the renovation of existing churches and construction of new churches.
2. Telangana: A report published in 2019 provides that the Telangana Government led by Chief Minister L Chandrashekar Rao sanctioned Rs. 1 lakh each to 200 churches for Christmas.
3. Andhra Pradesh: The Andhra Pradesh Government led by Chief Minister Jagan Reddy announced that his government will be paying Rs. 5000 as a monthly honorarium to pastors. This was apart from the whopping 50% increase in assistance for Christians travelling to Jerusalem and other Biblical places.
4. Kerala: The Kerala Government has made it mandatory for Travancore Devasam Board (TDB) to deposit major chunk of the annual income of Sabrimala Temple in the Government account in the state treasury.
5. Madurai: The Madurai High Court accepted the contention of the devotee that Temples and related religious institutions owned 5.25 lakh acres of agriculture land which has come down to 4.78 lakh acres by 2017.
6. Delhi: Delhi Government introduced a salary hike for the Imams of Delhi and the helpers of Mosques. Not merely that, it was announced that the salaries of imams outside the purview of the Delhi Waqf Board would be covered by the government of the Union Territory for the first time.
7. Bombay: The case of embezzlement of donated money and other valuables from Tulja Bhawani Temple came forward where it was found that Rupees 8.46 Crores worth of gold and other valuables were misappropriated by officials by auctioning donation boxes of the temple.
Above mentioned are some of the examples which shows that the money which has been illegally fetched by the government from the arbitrary control of the Hindu Temples are being used wither to fill their own pockets or in the upliftment of so called minorities extending them government schemes keeping their funds totally away from the Government control. Such act of the government is against the principles of secularism and blatant discrimination of Hindus. Another issue which need to be taken into consideration that under the garb of secularism the state has appointed non-Hindus in the Boards so as to manage the affairs the religious affairs of the temple.
Appointment of Non-Hindus in Management Boards of Hindu Temples by the State:
1. The Tirumala Tirpati Devasthanams has faced significant scrutiny regarding appointments of non -Hindu n the Board having the control and management of the religious affairs of the Hindu Temples. The appointment of Crypto Christian Y.S. Sumadhur Reddy as the chairman of TTD is a burning example of appointment of Non Hindus to manage the affairs of the Hindu Temples.
2. In February 2020, a media report revealed that A Rajasekhar Rao, Assistant Executive Officer (AEO) of the Sri Venkateswara (SV) Group of temples, was seen praying at St. Paul Lutheran Church in Puttur. Rao, who was in charge of overseeing the “Parakamani” (Hundi counting) at the Tirumala Mandir
3. In 2018, the appointment of Payakaraopet legislator Vangalapudi Anita, reportedly a Christian, to the then-newly constituted Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) Trust Board.
4. In 2017, Snehalatha, a Deputy Executive Officer in TTD’s Welfare Department, was found to be in gross violation of service rules by regularly attending a Christian Lutheran church in an official car.
5. In 2024, a Muslim man named Nawaz was appointed to the committee responsible for organizing the Brahmotsavam festivities at the Shri Avimukteshwara Swamy Temple, located in the Bangalore Rural District of Karnataka.
6. Till 2023, the Maa Sharda Management Committee had three Muslim employees, who had been working there since 1988 including legal advisor Abid Hussain.
7. In 2021, in Himachal Pradesh, the state government appointed Jashan Deen and Shakeen Mohhamad, both from the non-Hindu community, as langar sevakars at the Maa Jwalamukhi Temple in Kangra.
8. In 2019, a shocking revelation came when it was reported that 17 non-Hindu employees were appointed at various levels within the administration of the Srisailam Devasthanams in Andhra Pradesh. Among these non-Hindu employees were Muslims like S. Khasim Vali, S. A. Wahab, and S. A. Rasool, alongside Christians including Ch. Yohan, D. Ibrahim, K. Yebu, M. Chandi Bai, Y. Israel, P.Daniel, K.Benjamin, C.Emanuel, Ch. Isak, D.Devaraju, G.Mery, J.Lazar, J.Mariyamma, K.K. Mariamma.
9. The Mamata Government chose to appoint West Bengal’s state Urban Development Minister Firhad Hakim as the Chairman of the board
These are some of the examples of the state government arbitrariness and intention so as to destroy the Hindu identity, Culture and Tradition they have given in hands the management of religious affairs of Hindu Temples to Non Hindus. It is pertinent to mention here in that the Kerala Government has brought an amendment in Section 29 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act which earlier provides for the appointment of only Hindu on the post of Commissioner where the Government while bringing an amendment omitted “who shall be appointed by the Board. He shall be Hindu”, which was later challenged before the Court of law.
Conclusion
India is a secular nation but the arbitrarily control of government and interference of state in the religious affairs of Hindus is against the spirit of Constitution of India. It is pertinent to mention herein that a secular government running Hindu temples is extremely problematic and questionable. Hindu Temples are religious institutions and the ownership lies in the Deity of the Temple which has been delegated to the pujari extend to manage the affairs of the temple and not to the state. The control of Hindu religious institution and free passing the institution of other religion is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. With their significant funds and revenue, temple management boards could establish schools, hospitals, and other services for the Hindu community. However, since temple administration is controlled by government-appointed secular committees, the donations are often diverted to “secular” projects. Sometimes, these funds are even used by Communist governments to support anti-Hindu activities. In essence, Hindus are being taxed for their devotion – a form of ‘jizya’ in free India. This is a high time that temples must be free from the illegal control of the state so as to maintain the secular fabric of the nation and respecting the constitutional provision.
Comments