GOVT. CANNOT USE
TEMPLE FUNDS FOR OTHER RELIGIONS
Government has no constitutional right to divide Hindu society arbitrarily and to compel Hindu temples to provide assistance to institutions of other religions- Judgment given by Honorable High Court (Source:
Government has no constitutional right to divide Hindu society arbitrarily and to compel Hindu temples to provide assistance to institutions of other religions- Judgment given by Honorable High Court (Source:
A division bench
comprising Justice R Gururajan and Justice C R Kumaraswamy struck down the Act
stating that the legislation violated Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the
Constitution which provided for right to equality, freedom of conscience and freedom
of profession, practice and propagation of religion and also the freedom to
manage the religious affairs. The order will come into effect prospectively.
The Karnataka High Court on Friday struck down the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 as unconstitutional pointing out that its provisions amounted to "dividing Hindu religion."
A division bench comprising Justice R Gururajan and Justice C R Kumaraswamy struck down the Act stating that the legislation violated Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution which provided for right to equality, freedom of conscience and freedom of profession, practice and propagation of religion and also the freedom to manage the religious affairs. The order will come into effect prospectively.
The bench also side aside an order of a single judge who had upheld the constitutional validity of the Act last year. Several trustees of the temples and archaks had challenged the order contending that the Act divided the Hindu community, besides denying the right guaranteed under the constitution to establish and manage religious institution.
The court, in its 176-page order, observed that keeping out Maths and denomination temples from the purview of the Act amounted to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. "Religious denomination does not in any way stand on a different footing than other temples," the court observed and said the state has to justify its action of exclusion of Maths in the Act, which were earlier included in local Acts.
The court said the Act defined Hindu as not to include Sikh, Jain and Buddist contrary to constitutional provisions. "Hindu religion is already divided by way of castes and sub-castes. Now the state wants to divide Hindus by excluding Jains, Sikhs in terms of a statute", the court observed.
Regarding the provision in the Act, which makes it mandatory for a notified temple to contribute 5 per cent of its total annual income to the "Common Pool Fund", regulated by the Endowment Commissioner, the court said there cannot be compulsion only for Hindu temples to provide assistance to institutions of other religions. "Devotees of Hindu temples provide money for temple purposes and it cannot be spent for non-Hindu causes," the court observed. The court said the government could have a commission constituted for temple affairs and involve Hindu religious leaders, social reformers and other experts and thereafter proceed to pass a uniform law.
The government can also think of having different regulatory measures for temples, maths and Jain institutions depending on their religious beliefs within the provision of the Constitution. "We deem it proper to observe that the government would be doing a great service to Hindu society by eliminating all evil corrupt practices, if at all, prevailing in Hindu institutions. This would go a long way in Hindu temple reformation," the court observed.
Highlights
Leaving Maths and 'denomination' temples out of the purview of the Act is violation of Article 14 pertaining to right to equality Act definition that 'Hindu' does not to include Sikh, Jain and Buddist contrary to Constitutional provisions.
State cannot compel temples to provide assistance to institutions of other religions
Single judge order upholding the validity of the Act set aside
"There are 2,07,000 temples in Karnataka & the total income of these temples are Rs 72 crores per year. Only Rs. 6 crore is spent by government for temples, 50 crores for the madrasas and 10 crores for the churches, 6 crore for other activities. In a period of 5 years, 50,000 temples will be closed for the want of funds in just Karnataka alone."Â Â -Sri Sri Ravishankar, 2005>>
The Karnataka High Court on Friday struck down the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 as unconstitutional pointing out that its provisions amounted to "dividing Hindu religion."
A division bench comprising Justice R Gururajan and Justice C R Kumaraswamy struck down the Act stating that the legislation violated Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution which provided for right to equality, freedom of conscience and freedom of profession, practice and propagation of religion and also the freedom to manage the religious affairs. The order will come into effect prospectively.
The bench also side aside an order of a single judge who had upheld the constitutional validity of the Act last year. Several trustees of the temples and archaks had challenged the order contending that the Act divided the Hindu community, besides denying the right guaranteed under the constitution to establish and manage religious institution.
The court, in its 176-page order, observed that keeping out Maths and denomination temples from the purview of the Act amounted to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. "Religious denomination does not in any way stand on a different footing than other temples," the court observed and said the state has to justify its action of exclusion of Maths in the Act, which were earlier included in local Acts.
The court said the Act defined Hindu as not to include Sikh, Jain and Buddist contrary to constitutional provisions. "Hindu religion is already divided by way of castes and sub-castes. Now the state wants to divide Hindus by excluding Jains, Sikhs in terms of a statute", the court observed.
Regarding the provision in the Act, which makes it mandatory for a notified temple to contribute 5 per cent of its total annual income to the "Common Pool Fund", regulated by the Endowment Commissioner, the court said there cannot be compulsion only for Hindu temples to provide assistance to institutions of other religions. "Devotees of Hindu temples provide money for temple purposes and it cannot be spent for non-Hindu causes," the court observed. The court said the government could have a commission constituted for temple affairs and involve Hindu religious leaders, social reformers and other experts and thereafter proceed to pass a uniform law.
The government can also think of having different regulatory measures for temples, maths and Jain institutions depending on their religious beliefs within the provision of the Constitution. "We deem it proper to observe that the government would be doing a great service to Hindu society by eliminating all evil corrupt practices, if at all, prevailing in Hindu institutions. This would go a long way in Hindu temple reformation," the court observed.
Highlights
Leaving Maths and 'denomination' temples out of the purview of the Act is violation of Article 14 pertaining to right to equality Act definition that 'Hindu' does not to include Sikh, Jain and Buddist contrary to Constitutional provisions.
State cannot compel temples to provide assistance to institutions of other religions
Single judge order upholding the validity of the Act set aside
"There are 2,07,000 temples in Karnataka & the total income of these temples are Rs 72 crores per year. Only Rs. 6 crore is spent by government for temples, 50 crores for the madrasas and 10 crores for the churches, 6 crore for other activities. In a period of 5 years, 50,000 temples will be closed for the want of funds in just Karnataka alone."Â Â -Sri Sri Ravishankar, 2005>>
SC notice to A.P. on
petition challenging HR and CE Act
NEW DELHI, December 18, 2012 SC notice to A.P. on petition challenging HR and CE Act J. VENKATESAN
The Supreme Court has issued notice to the States of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh and the Union Territory of Puducherry on a writ petition filed by Sri Dayananda Saraswati Swamiji, Sri Paramatmananda Saraswati Swamiji and Sri Vishweswaranand Giriraj Maharaj, challenging the Hindu Religious and Endowments Acts of the respective governments.
A Bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra issued notice after hearing senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan and senior R. Venkataramani and counsel Bindu Nair and sought the response of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh and the Union Territory of Puducherry governments.
The petitioners said they were aggrieved over the provisions of HR & CE Acts as they took away the internal autonomy of the religious institutions and denominations.
They said even the conduct of religious rites and rituals are completely constricted and regulated by the Executive Officers and by the Trustees appointed by the Government, in violation of the rights guaranteed to the people who practise and profess the religion and of the religious denominations under Article 14,15 (1), 19(1)(g) 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The proposed expenditures and budgets for conducting religious rituals have to be considered upfront by the authorities of the Department and the Government and only after meeting with their approvals can money be expended for such rituals. The temples are thus
NEW DELHI, December 18, 2012 SC notice to A.P. on petition challenging HR and CE Act J. VENKATESAN
The Supreme Court has issued notice to the States of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh and the Union Territory of Puducherry on a writ petition filed by Sri Dayananda Saraswati Swamiji, Sri Paramatmananda Saraswati Swamiji and Sri Vishweswaranand Giriraj Maharaj, challenging the Hindu Religious and Endowments Acts of the respective governments.
A Bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra issued notice after hearing senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan and senior R. Venkataramani and counsel Bindu Nair and sought the response of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh and the Union Territory of Puducherry governments.
The petitioners said they were aggrieved over the provisions of HR & CE Acts as they took away the internal autonomy of the religious institutions and denominations.
They said even the conduct of religious rites and rituals are completely constricted and regulated by the Executive Officers and by the Trustees appointed by the Government, in violation of the rights guaranteed to the people who practise and profess the religion and of the religious denominations under Article 14,15 (1), 19(1)(g) 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The proposed expenditures and budgets for conducting religious rituals have to be considered upfront by the authorities of the Department and the Government and only after meeting with their approvals can money be expended for such rituals. The temples are thus
virtually treated as the personal fiefdom of political masters.
There
is no rationale or justice for the government to discriminate and arbitrarily
fetter and restrict the temples internal autonomy in management and
administration, which cannot be dubbed as secular in character, more so when
there is no aid or contribution or grant from the Government.
They pointed out that the constitutional mandate of hands-off from the religious institutions was totally breached so far as the Hindu Temples and Charitable Institutions were concerned. If the Government can wield its power to appoint or remove the Trustees and compel them to obey all orders of the Government or its servants on pain of prosecution and dismissal, and in devious ways can remove the Trustees and replace them by its nominees and the denominations or communities have no lot or part in the choice of Trustees or voice in the management of the institution, it is plain that Articles 25 and 26 are rendered nugatory and of no real effect whatever for Hindus of this country.
They pointed out that the constitutional mandate of hands-off from the religious institutions was totally breached so far as the Hindu Temples and Charitable Institutions were concerned. If the Government can wield its power to appoint or remove the Trustees and compel them to obey all orders of the Government or its servants on pain of prosecution and dismissal, and in devious ways can remove the Trustees and replace them by its nominees and the denominations or communities have no lot or part in the choice of Trustees or voice in the management of the institution, it is plain that Articles 25 and 26 are rendered nugatory and of no real effect whatever for Hindus of this country.
They sought a
declaration that the offending provisions were unconstitutional.
Laws
take away autonomy of religious institutions
Petitioners says provisions
are unconstitutional 
No comments:
Post a Comment