The Supreme Court questioned the relevance of public interest litigation (PIL) that pushed for Hindus to have the same right as Christians and Muslims to manage religious places like temples without government interference, noting that since all temple revenues come from society, they may very well be returned to the people by way of creating colleges and universities.
A bench of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat heard the case. While the PIL emphasised the problem of Hindus being “singled out,” with state governments overseeing temples and their profits, the bench questioned the need to revise the 1863 Religious Endowments Act, noting that the statute has enabled temples to serve “larger needs of the society.”
“What is the need for this? This has been functioning for such a long time…If it is a receipt of the temple, it is by the people. So, it has to go back to the people. Take the example of Tirupati, you have colleges there…Universities are set up in Delhi by state enterprises. What’s wrong with that?” the bench observed during the hearing.
Supreme Court Says It Requires More Data To Consider Plea Challenging HRCE Laws, Seeking Uniform Code Instead; listed on September 19 @AshwiniUpadhyay #temples #SupremeCourthttps://t.co/WyPh9lKMhG
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) September 1, 2022
“This Act has been working since 1863. We have a history of 150 years where these denominations catered to the larger needs of society and not for their purpose only. Some temples have even given their lands. Now, you are asking us to roll the clock back,” the bench further remarked.
Petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, an advocate and former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson, through senior counsels Arvind Datar and Gopal Sankaranarayanan contended that Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs should have the same rights as Muslims, Parsis, and Christians to establish, manage, and maintain religious places and that the state cannot deny this right.
According to the PIL, the government controls around 400,000 of the country’s 900,000 temples, but no church or mosque-related religious organisation is under government control or administration.
It is notable that religious endowments are included in the concurrent list, which allows both the Centre and the states to enact legislation that allows governments to exert certain authority over administration, supervision, and levy on Hindu religious sites.
A similar statute exists in the state of Tamil Nadu. All temple hundi collections (offerings) are placed in the specified temple bank accounts. The government uses 14% of this as administrative costs, 4% as audit fees, and between 4 and 10% as the ‘Commissioner Common Good Fund.’ Furthermore, funds are allocated to various government-run programmes.
Datar protested, citing the Tamil Nadu statute, that similar laws have been enacted in other states, including Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana, allowing state governments to use temple money for non-religious or just administrative reasons. In support of him, Sankaranarayan stated that 50,000 temples in Karnataka had been shuttered due to a lack of funds, and temple properties have been utterly wasted.
In reference to the Naganathswamy Temple case, the PIL argues that the cause of action in the matter began on April 10, 2016, when the King Rajendra Chola-built Naganathswamy Temple under Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, was “pulled down by the State in the garb of renovation.”
The petition notes that mosques and churches are not under the supervision of State governments, but that this causes “injury to Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs is extremely large.” However, the bench directed the lawyers to present evidence to back up their claims about temple closures and other allegations of money embezzlement. It then scheduled the issue for hearing on September 19.
As the Supreme Court made these observations, it is notable that the Madras High Court made a strange observation while hearing a plea where the petitioner had sought protection to offer worship at a temple of the family deity. The Madras HC observed that temples become a cause of law and order problems, and such temples should be closed down to restore peace and normalcy in society. “It is a paradox that closure of a temple actually leads to peace,” the court had then observed.
