Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
R. Gururajan and C.R. Kumaraswamy, JJ.
Sahasra Lingeshwara Temple, rep. by its Managing Trustee Sundaresh Athaje S/o Shivarama Aithal and others, etc., etc. —Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka, rep. by its Secy., Department of Religious and Charitable Endowment and Kukke Sri Subramanya Temple rep. by Administrator and others, etc., etc. —Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos. 3419, 3460, 3467, 3468, 3469, 3470, 3479, 3484, 3485, 3486, 3487, 3488, 3500, 3507, 3511, 3512, 3514, 3522, 3526, 3532, 3538, 3541, 3548, 3549, 3552, 3559, 3564, 3566, 3569, 3573, 3575, 3576, 3578, 3582, 3593, 3594, 3595, 3602, 3608, 3609, 3610, 3611, 3629, 3641, 3660, 3693, 3694, 3717, 3723, 3746, 3772, 3805, 3822, 3851, 3868, 3905/2005 and WP Nos. 20, 123, 247, 307, 833, 991, 3027, 3040, 3471, 3720, 3739, 4203 and 8984 of 2006
Decided on : 08-09-2006
The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (the "Act") was challenged on the grounds that it violated Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that the Act discriminated against certain religious groups, such as Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists, and that it interfered with the religious practices of Hindus. The state government argued that the Act was necessary to regulate the administration of Hindu religious institutions and that it did not violate any constitutional rights.
Fact of the Case:
The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (the "Act") was challenged on the grounds that it violated Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that the Act discriminated against certain religious groups, such as Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists, and that it interfered with the religious practices of Hindus. The state government argued that the Act was necessary to regulate the administration of Hindu religious institutions and that it did not violate any constitutional rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Act violated Articles 14 and 26 of the Constitution. The court found that the Act discriminated against Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists by excluding them from its coverage. The court also found that the Act interfered with the religious practices of Hindus by giving the government control over the administration of Hindu religious institutions.
Issues: 1. Whether the Act violated Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating against certain religious groups? 2. Whether the Act violated Article 25 of the Constitution by interfering with the religious practices of Hindus? 3. Whether the Act violated Article 26 of the Constitution by giving the government control over the administration of Hindu religious institutions?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act violated Articles 14 and 26 of the Constitution. The court found that the Act discriminated against Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists by excluding them from its coverage. The court also found that the Act interfered with the religious practices of Hindus by giving the government control over the administration of Hindu religious institutions.
Final Decision: The court struck down the Act as unconstitutional.
R. Gururajan, J.—1. Hindu temples/Trustees of temples/arches and others of Karnataka ace before us aggrieved by the Judgment of this Court dated 9.9.2005 passed in W.P. Nos. 31937/2003 and connected matters in these appeals.
2. It is unnecessary for us to refer to the facts in each one of the cases. The State Government in terms of the powers conferred on then has chosen to enact a law by name the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and the Rules framed thereunder. The said Act in terms of the statement of objects and reasons was enacted in the light of a longstanding public demand to bring about a uniform law to provide for the regulation of all charitable Endowments and Hindu Religious Institution in the State, which are now regulated under different enactments having local application in different parts of the State. The said Act was brought into force with effect from in terms of the notification. The Act is applicable to Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowment but shall not apply to a math or temple attached thereto, to any Hindu religious institution or charitable endowment founded, organised, run or managed by Hindu religious denomination.
3. There are several chapters providing for various contingencies in the matter. Aggrieved by the said act, several temples/trustees/arohaks etc., filed a bunch of Writ Petitions in this Court questioning the Constitutional validity of the said Act. Some of the petitioners also challenged the notification issued under the Act with regard to the governing of the temples in terms of the notification. Matter was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Detailed arguments were advanced. After hearing, the learned single Judge in his order dated 9.9.2005 held that the Act is valid and constitutional. Learned Judge reserved liberty to the petitioners who are aggrieved by the inclusion in the notification to approach the authorities under the Act, if so advised. The learned Judge ruled that if any complaints are filed, the authorities are to hold enquiries with opportunity and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law. This order is challenged by the petitioners in these appeals.
4. Matter was heard on several days. Several learned Counsels appearing for the appellants argued the case from several angles of temple law. Constitutional principles were projected before us for the purpose of declaring the Act as unconstitutional in terns of the constitution.
5. Sri. A.G. Holla, learned Senior Counsel led the arguments. He was supported by Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel Sri. Padubidri Raghavendra Rao, learned Senior counsel, Sri. D.L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel, Sri. Keshava Bhat, learned Counsel, Sri. Panindra, learned Counsel, Sri. Krishna Bhat, learned Counsel, Sri. Jalsatgi, learned Counsel. Sri. Ramesh, learned Counsel and others.
6. Sri. Holla, learned Senior Counsel took us through the history of temple material on record to say that the learned Judge has committed a serious error in not considering the case property in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He invites our attention to the inapplicability of this Act to Maths, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhist the present act excludes them without any justification. According to him, this would amount to a hostile discrimination in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also took us through the Judgment of the Supreme Court to say that uniform law was emphasized by the Apex Court and in the process of uniform law, a further dissection is made in so far as the Hindu Religious/ and Institutions and temples are concerned in the case on hand by the State. He took us through Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India to say that there is a violation of the rights guaranteed in the light of the various provisions of the Act. In fact, he would further argue that the Advisory committee headed by the Minister would result in political intervention a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
