The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the State’s decision to designate an “Executive Officer” to govern and supervise the operations of the Ahobilam Temple in Kurnool violates Article 26(d) of the Constitution and interferes with the Mathadipathis’ rights to administer. The division bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice DVSS Somayajulu said unequivocally that the Temple is a component of the Ahobila m Math in Tamilnadu.
The court disagreed with the State’s claim that the Temple and the Math are separate organizations. The bench ruled that although the Math is currently located in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Temple is currently located in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the former does not stop being a site of religious devotion for the main Math. The court also noted the fact that at one point in time both places would fall under the same composite state of Madras.
The court said, “Ahobilam Temple is an integral and inseparable part of Ahobilam Math, which was established as a part of the propagation of Hindu religion and for rendering spiritual service for propagating Sri Vaishnavism. The successive Jeeyars are the trustees of the Ahobilam Devasthanam and since the Government cannot appoint an Executive Officer for the Ahobilam Math, it has no power to appoint an Executive Officer for the Ahobilam Temple by treating it separate from the Math. Appointing an Executive Officer for Temple, which is a part of the Math, is violative of Article 26(d) of the Constitution of India, as the same affects Jeeyars’/Mathadipathis’ right of administration.”
The court added, “The mere fact that there is no physical proximity is unimportant if there is spiritual/religious or denominational oneness. Even if the Math and Temple are geographically apart if there is oneness or uniformity in the sampradaya, the practices, rituals, etc., the temple must be held to be appurtenant to the Math. The Mathadipathi cannot be reduced to the status of a mere employee or his powers cannot be denuded or taken away by the appointment of an Executive Officer, who will exercise all functions or control.”
The bench ruled that the State is not given general authority to supervise and govern math, and that interference in its operations should only be made where there are good reasons to do so, such as poor management. However, it was discovered in this instance that there was absolutely no support for the nomination of the Executive Officer.
Finally, the court observed that the Mathadipathis, whose appointment did not vest in or was exercised by the Government, continued to oversee the Temple beginning with the Endowments Act of 1927 and continuing through the Acts of 1951, 1959, and 1966 until the Act of 1987. The petitioners, who were devotees, had stated that, in accordance with the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, the State lacks the right to name the Executive Officer for the Math or Temple. They argued that the Maths should be granted a unique status and the authority to regulate their own affairs by citing Chapter V of the Act.
It was claimed that the government acknowledged the lack of a procedure for non-hereditary trustee appointments to the temple in 2014. The government’s representative, Advocate General S Sriram, has contended that Ahobilam Math and the Temple are independent organizations. He argued that a temple is a venue of public religious worship as opposed to math, which serves a certain community and hosts activities like spiritual services. He stated that the limits imposed by the Act with regard to Math do not apply to the temple since it provides unlimited access to the public in this circumstance.
After hearing both parties, the court ordered, “The State of Andhra Pradesh has no authority, jurisdiction, or entitlement under the law to appoint an Executive Officer of Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam (Ahobilam Math Temple).”
