Open Forum
New
Delhi, 20 August 2020
State Control of Temples
IS IT SECULAR OR COMMUNAL?
By S. Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
A landmark judgement of the Supreme Court restoring
the ceremonial rights of the ex-royals of
Thiruvanandapuram over Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Kerala -- one of the
richest in the country -- has failed to draw due public attention because of
our preoccupation with COVID-19 infection. The previous judgement of the Kerala
High Court, which directed the State Government to create a trust to take
control of the temple, was set aside.
A nine-year long battle thus ended with the twin decision
of recognising the right of the royal family as “shebait” having the right to
management and preservation of temple property, and setting up committees to help
in the administration and management of the temple. The properties belong to
the temple and Shebaits have no ownership right over them.
It is a judgement of vital consequences that may
kindle expectations of similar privatisation of many other temples like those in Mysore that
have fully gone from the control of erstwhile royal families or management by local
communities to the control of the government.
Control over big temples with large income
has been a matter for many litigations since independence. The rich Nataraja Temple in Chidambaram, a pilgrim
centre believed to be the venue of celestial
dance of Lord Shiva and which has sculptures of 108 dance poses carved
on pillars has undergone prolonged legal battle for more than a century for control
and management.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in
1952 upheld the traditional right of the priests of the temple called Podu
Dikshitars to administer the affairs of the temple. The Supreme Court in 1953
dismissed Madras Government’s petition seeking quashing of the High Court
order.
The Government of Tamil Nadu tried to prove
its zeal in introducing radical social reforms by taking
over this temple by an executive order in 2006. It was upheld by the Madras
High Court in 2009. In 2014, in the appeal filed in the Supreme Court, the question
how the government could take over control of a temple in a secular country
arose nearly 65 years after the adoption of the Constitution and 38 years after
the insertion of the word “secular” in the Preamble.
The SC removed government control and
restored the rights of the temple priests, and also expressed concern over the failure of various State
governments in managing temples for the benefit of the communities. Harassment of
devotees and diversion of temple funds to non-religious purposes and even for
pilgrimages of devotees of other religions were pointed out.
Bills introduced in the Lok Sabha by private
members seeking freedom from government control for Hindu temples in the
country have not been successful. They demand that the State should not
administer or manage any religious institution or frame any law to control a
religious institution, and specifically seek to disallow diversion of temple
income in the name of “secular purposes”.
These attempts are a prelude to seeking enforcement of Article 26 of the
Constitution to prevent government take- over of Hindu religious institutions.
Two major issues were involved in the dispute
-- one pertaining to the essential character of a secular State to keep away
from religious activities and institutions, and the other about granting equal religious
rights to majority and minority communities. Only Hindu religious institutions
have fallen under tight government control and not those of Muslim, Christian
and Sikh.
When
the Board of Revenue was created in 1789, temple properties were brought under
its control paving way for government control over temples under the Madras
Regulation VII of 1817. However, in 1840, a Directive of East India Company
returned the temples to their trustees as the Christian missionaries had
objection to managing Hindu temples, but gave supervisory power to the Board of
Revenue – a step towards secular control of Hindu religious institutions. The Religious Endowments Act 1863 confirmed
this by handing over administration of temples and other religious institutions
to trustees appointed by the British Government.
The Justice Party and the Non-Brahmin
Movement in Madras Presidency in the 1920s took up temple
administration as a social reform. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board was created
by law with professed objective of “better governance and management” of
religious institutions. It systematically
brought many religious institutions under its control and established its power
for “take over” of temples by 1935. It was effectively stopped in 1939 by the
Madras High Court ruling that the Board could not take over temples on
“frivolous grounds”.
Government entry in the affairs of temples
was never intended for conducting proper religious functions, but for management
and administration of their wealth and assets. Rich temples own vast
agricultural land, buildings and houses, valuable gold ornaments, and large
donations in cash and kind.
The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Act was adopted by the Lok Sabha in 1951 to hand over the administration of
Hindu religious institutions to State Governments. By 2020, an estimated 4 lakh
temples across the country have come under the control of State Governments.
“Management of a temple is primarily a
secular act. Indisputably, the State has the requisite jurisdiction to oversee
administration of a temple subject to article 25 and 26 of the Constitution”,
said the Supreme Court in a case pertaining to Sree Krishnan Temple at
Guruvayur in 2005. It also upheld the
verdict of Kerala High Court that Hindu Ministers in the Council of Ministers
in a State need not have faith in God and temple worship to nominate members to
the managing committee of a temple. It went further in some States where
non-Hindu members are included in Devaswom Board.
On the contrary, the Sikh Gurudwaras Act of
1925 brought gurudwaras under full control of an elected body of Sikhs -- the
Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee formed in 1920. So also, Jain temples
are managed by Jains. Muslims guard their religious institutions, and the
Central Wakf Board - a statutory body established in 1964 - is responsible for
proper religious services in mosques.
The Government can have a say in the management
of educational and other institutions run by Hindu religious bodies, but must
keep away from the institutions run by other religious bodies.
The anomaly goes on since Hindus have no common
religious head or organisation. Recognised spiritual leaders have no legal
power or any authority to speak for them. Lack of organisational structure increases the
faith of the devotees in the worship of the deities and following ritualistic
practices, and weakens their interest in temple administration, thus helping easy
take-over of the administration of temples of Hindus by temporal authorities.
It is neither possible nor desirable to try to introduce an artificial organisation
for Hindus.
Strangely, State control is considered as a
secular move in the case of temples, but an unacceptable communal action in the
case of other minority religious institutions. It is inexplicable, but society
has allowed this double standard so long that introduction of uniform law and
practice seems impossible. The future of privatisation of temples is in the
hands of courts. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|