Since most state governments are interfering in the management and finances of Hindu temples, shouldn’t there just be a law which allows this for all places of religious worship?
The British Raj wanted to control the temples of India to earn revenues as Hindu Temples at that time earned huge donations from the priestly classes. But the Church of The Crown complained about how the crown controls Pagan Places of Worship, owning to that the British Raj presented an Act which was called The Religious Endowments Act 1863. The act barred the BR to interfere with temple revenues. The Revenues were then on handled by the trustees of priestly class or the temple itself.
The funds were used for the upkeep of temple premises, Idols of the God and prasadam. After the handing out of temples to the trustees the role of the Government was minimised with little to no interference of the state with the Institutions of religion. This act continued till 1925 when the government proposed a new act which was called The Madras Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (1925) which aimed to manage all the religious institutions in the province. The Christians and Muslims opposed the act vehemently. The BR owning to its fear of hurting religious sentiments of the Minorities took back the decision of Including the Christians and Muslims but Hindus. The act was then on exclusively for the Hindu Temples with some amendments. Two years later, the act was renamed as the Madras Hindu Religious and Endowments Act 1927, and made applicable to Hindus only.This didn’t stopped there only, the act was again legislated with new amendments like making an Administrative Board who controls the temple and put forth the orders of the British Raj. The purport of the act was again altered when a legislation by way of Act XII of 1935 was introduced through which temples could be notified by the government and their administration taken over. Through this legislation, the Hindu Religious Endowment Board assumed powers to take over and administer temples. The board consisted of three to five members.
After the independence of India the Tamil Nadu Government amended the act and renamed it The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 which legalised the State control over the Hindu Temples excluding the minorities.
The decision was subsequently Challenged before the Madras High Court and after that in the Supreme Court of India in the Shirur Math Case.
Many provisions of the act were struck down by both the courts. With some changes the Hindu Religious and Charitable Act 1959 was legalised. The Congress Government at that time said the act was for the transparency of the funds and looking out for excessive funds which could be used in different matters by the Temple Adminstration.
The act explicitly said the Hindu Religious Endowments Board would be struck and the Government will appoint a commissioner to the temple who would take care of the funds if found any misuse. The act said if found any misuse of the funds the commissioner can take over the temple under Government Control.This provision of mismanagement does not apply to Muslim and Christian communities.
The Supreme Court
The supreme court of India on many occasions have expressed their disagreements over this provision.Last year while adjudicating the case in respect to Jagannath Temple the bench of Supreme court said, the bench of Justices S.A. Bobde and S.A. Nazeer asked as to why should government officials manage religious places and temples in the country. The Moseb Kaba Chowdhary & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal, deals with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court had ruled that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure.
In M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair and Anr. Vs State of Kerala and Ors., the Supreme Court again observed that India is a secular country and Secularism has been inserted in the Preamble by reason of the Constitution 42nd amendment Act, 1976. The object of inserting the said word was to spell out expressly the high ideas of secularism and the integrity of the nation on the ground that these institutions are subjected to considerable stresses and strains and vested interests have been trying to promote their selfish ends to the great detriment of the public good. The SC further concluded that: – The constitution prohibits the establishment of a theocratic State. – The Constitution is not only prohibited to establish any religion of its own but is also prohibited to identify itself with or favoring any particular religion. – The secularism under the Indian Constitution does not mean constitution of an atheist society but it merely means equal status of all religions without any preference in favor of or discrimination against any one of them.
A New Sun
Last year in November a BJP MP brought a private bill which states that the government should/must not discriminate on the basis of religion. The exclusion of Minority institutions or the inclusion of Hindu Temples in the Act of State control of Majority Religion’s places of worship is a sort of discrimination. It violates the article 14 of the constitution.
The draft of the bill says the state should exclude itself from interfering in private matters of Hindu temples or for that matter any religious institution. There should be a clear separation of the state from Religious Institutions.
Dr. Satyapal Singh has introduced ‘THE CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2019′ in the winter session of the parliament now. The bill calls for the amendments to Articles 15, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30. The bill declares the following in its statement of objects and reasons: “As per our Constitution, the State has no religion. The State has to treat all religions and religious people equally and with equal respect without, in any manner, interfering with their right to freedom of religion, faith and worship. As evident from the sub-text of the debates of the Constituent Assembly, the rights assured for the majority were only made explicit to the minorities as an assurance to the latter in the backdrop of the peculiar circumstances then prevailing in the aftermath of partition. In any case, it was never the intention of the makers of our Constitution to deny to the majority the rights expressly provided to the minority. Yet, it gradually led to interpretations that only the minorities were given rights withheld from the majority generating an unhealthy feeling of discrimination among the majority community. It goes without saying that nursing any real or perceived grievance against the State by any section of citizens, majority or minority, is detrimental to the unity and integrity of the country.” “There has been widespread legitimate grievance and feeling of discrimination among Hindus that despite the Constitutional provisions and judicial decisions, Hindu temples and religious and charitable institutions are routinely taken over by the secular State on the pretext of maladministration, mismanagement, etc., whereas mosques and churches of the minorities are allowed to be exclusively managed by the respective communities even though article 26 confers right equally upon all sections of citizens. Hindus also genuinely feel that such State control results in despoiling the Hindu religious centers, large scale misappropriation of the temples’ income and properties and its redirection to secular purposes by the State, which is a major factor in the grinding poverty afflicting most Hindu temples, priests and their families. In order to maintain the secular character of the State and prevent it from usurping the religious and charitable institutions of any religious denomination or a section thereof, it is felt necessary to amend article 26 of the Constitution.” [1][2]By virtue of control over the Trust Board, the government also controls the surplus funds generated by these temples. Bear in mind that these are some of the richest temples anywhere in the world, not just in India. What happens to these surplus funds? The reality is no one quite knows. All we know is that they are rarely – if ever – diverted back to improving the temple, the facilities, the salaries of priests or for Hindu religious pursuits. For the most part, they are transferred arbitrarily by the government for “secular”, non-Hindu purposes. The most damaging side-effect of this is lack of resources for maintenance and upkeep of temples, leading to irreparable damage to many medieval and ancient structures. In what may be the most appalling instance of such wilful neglect, disbursements to temples in Karnataka for renovation and maintenance between the period ’97-’98 to ’02-’03 fell (more than halved) from Rs 16.5 crores to Rs 7.1 crores even as revenues collected from temples rose from Rs 58.63 crores to Rs 79 crores! Interestingly, over the same period, disbursement to Madarsas, Mosques and Haj committee rose more than 4 times from Rs 14.25 crores to Rs 58 crores and disbursement to Christian institutions and churches more than doubled from Rs 5 crores to Rs 12.75 crores.
Conclusion
Government policies towards Hindu Temples are inherently discriminatory and a direct violation of Article 14. A violation of values of secularism Enshrined in our Constitution. State must separate itself from the Temple. But it’s not the case with Hindu temples except rest of the religious institutions. Stealing funds and revenues donated by people to a private institution Should not find itself in the greedy hands of Government.[3] [4] [5] [6]
Thanks For Reading.
Footnotes [1] Kerala based party supports BJP MP’s private member bill [2] Temple Freedom Bill shouldn’t fail, but it will – PGurus [3] Priest asks why governments impose taxes only on Hindu temples; Pawan Kalyan shares video [4] Why govt officials are managing religious places and temples: Supreme Court [5] On temples, some little known facts and a story of “secular” loot [6] Indian govt won’t be any different from British if Hindus can’t manage their own temples
The Liberty Post 
