Colonial Mindset Behind Govt's Tendency To Control Hindu Religious Institutions: Karnataka High Court
While striking down a government order taking over the administration of a Mutt by the state government, the Karnataka High Court has observed that the colonial mindset of interfering in religious matters continues even after independence and enactment of the constitution and that there has been a continued tendency to exclusively control Hindu religious institutions without any authority of law.
"Even after independence and enactment of the Constitution, this mindset continues in one or the other forms of inheritance. Even to this day, there has been a continued tendency in ‘powers that be’ to exclusively control (not merely regulate) Hindu Religious Institutions, without authority of law and at times, absolutely sans justification", the Court held.
The Court also held that a constitutionally ordained welfare State cannot "assume that civil society lacks virtues and that its members, such as devotees of Mutts and temples will be incapable of addressing exigencies of the kind, on their own and therefore, the government should rush in to set the things right".
The Court said that Mutts and temples are not of nascent origin and that there will be inevitable highs and lows as is with the turning of the wheel of time. "From this, no institution be it governmental or religious is immune", the Court held. It also said that even if civil society fails in its endeavours, that cannot justify the interference of the Government in the affairs of Mutt in the absence of legislative authorization and that the doctrine of parents partiae is not invocable in cases like this.
Finding that no law or ruling nor opinio juris is cited from the side of opponents to support the contention that the Pontiff-hood stands suspended on arrest and detention, per se, and that the Mutt is a religious denomination and Petitioner-Pontiff is the serving mathaadhipati, the Karnataka High Court held that the Pontiff despite confinement, continues to be Peethaadhipati of Mutt in question.
While refuting to invoke the doctrine of parents partiae, Single Judge Bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit observed that “If civil society fails in its endeavours, let it fail; however that cannot justify interference of the Government in the affairs of Mutt in the absence of legislative authorization”.
“The fact that the government has allotted some land to the Mutt and handed some funds, per se would not justify its interference, especially when the terms & conditions subject to which that has been done, do not authorizing action of the kind”, added the Bench.
Senior Advocate Jayakumar S Patil appeared for the Petitioners, whereas, the then Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi and Senior Advocate Gangadhar Gurumath appeared for the Respondent.
In a nutshell, the Petitioner – Mutt which practises and professes Basava Tatva, has mediately established 105 educational institutions which are managed by the Petitioner – Vidya Peetha and the Pontiff has the decisive role in the management. The Petitioner – Dr. Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru who was installed as Pontiff of the Mutt, was charged for the offences punishable under sections 376(2)(i), 376(3), read with section 149 of IPC and under sections 17, 5(1) & (6) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). This resulted in arrest of the Pontiff and others who are continuing in judicial custody. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner – Pontiff filed an application seeking a direction from the Jail Authorities to permit him to affix his signatures on cheques & other instruments for purpose of disbursements of salaries and other expenses to the staff of Mutt, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court. Later, a Coordinate Bench of this court granted the prayer and accordingly, the Petitioner executed two registered GPAs in favour of one Basavaprabhu Swamiji. When this was the position, the Government had appointed the Respondent – P.S. Vastrad, a retired IAS officer, as the Administrator for the Mutt & the institutions run by it. Hence present petition challenging said Government Order.
The High Court referred to Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution as well as the decision of Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta [(2004) 12 SCC 770] wherein it was held that ‘a religious denomination or organization enjoys almost a complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites & ceremonies constitute essential religious practice according to the tenets of religion concerned and that the State has no authority to meddle with such decisions.
Finding that no law of the kind as applicable to the Pontiffs of Mutts, is brought to notice of the Court, and nor any supportive provision in the Trust Deed in question is demonstrated, the Bench highlighted that the very fact that the Petitioner-Pontiff is in confinement physically renders him incapable of discharging certain rites/rituals of his office, cannot be gainfully disputed.
The Bench accepted the contention of Petitioner’s counsel that ordinarily detention per se does not strip off the status of Pontiff of a Mutt nor keeps all his rights in suspended animation.
“To put it metaphorically, prisons are not the ‘concentration camps’ of all legal rights; in their precincts lie no funeral pyres that burn such rights to ashes. Petitioners are still persons entitled to all constitutional rights otherwise not curtailed by law, although their rights & liberties stand diminished by the very confinement”, added the Bench.
While stating that the very Pontiff-hood has some proprietary character that enjoys protection under Article 300A of the Constitution, the Bench clarified that the appointment of Administrator amounts to substantial interference of the State with the administration & management of the affairs of both the Mutt & the institutions run under its aegis.
The Bench went on to elucidate that appointment of mathaadhipati is a matter to be governed by the customs & traditions obtaining in the Mutt, and in the absence of Pontiff because of death, disease or detention, what should happen is ordinarily be left to the devotees or the prominent members of the community concerned, should statute or some instrument of law does not provide for the solution.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the order whereby the Government had appointed the Administrator.
Cause Title: Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Vidhya Peetha and Anr. v. Chief Secretary and Ors. others.
Click here to read / download Judgment
