Temples Are Not Fiefdoms Of The State

Context: Understanding the demand for relieving government control of temples.

Arguments to justify sovereign control of the State over the temples

• Historical and cultural dimension: Hindu temples were supervised and managed by kings, who “habitually employed ministries to supervise temples and charitable bodies.
• Secular distinction: The Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 entrusted the committee appointed by the State with the task of ensuring the performance of seva pooja.
  • In Raja Birakishore vs The State Of Orissa, the Court made a revelation: the performance of puja is, in fact, a secular act and, therefore, the State is justified in its regulation.
• Constitutional provisions of religious liberty: Article 25(2) grants power to the State to enact a law on two distinct aspects -
  • Article 25(2)(a) empowers the State to regulate “economic, financial, political or other secular activities which may be associated with religious practice”.
  • Article 25(2)(b) enables the State to enact a law to prohibit the exclusion of ‘classes and sections of Hindu society to enter into Hindu temples of a public character and also make law for social welfare and reform.

Arguments in support of relieving government control of temples

• Gross misconduct in temple administration: Mismanagement of financial resources and indisputable corruption along with loss and destruction of temple antiquities.
• State control is limited to secular activities: Control of secular aspects associated with religion and the power to throw open Hindu temples to all classes and sections of society are distinct, and therefore, control of secular aspects is not a measure of any social reform.
  • Constitution does not permit the State to assume ownership of properties belonging to religious institutions and treat them as state largesse to be siphoned off.
  • Article 31A(b): Empowers State to take over the property of religious institutions, but its applicability to religious sects is doubtful.
  • The history of legislative practice of endowment laws reveals the state prerogative in ensuring regulation of only secular activities.
  • For e.g. The Shirur Mutt case, the Court struck down a major portion of the Act characterising the provisions as a “disastrous invasion” of religious liberty.
• Demand for the right of representation in affairs of management of temples: Fears of the perpetuation of class hierarchies can be negated by the creation of boards representative of religious heads, priests and responsible members from the dharmik sampradaya.
  • For e.g. Section 8 of the Religious Endowments Act (Act XX of 1863) provided that members of the committee (which controls religious institutions) be appointed from persons professing religion.
  • Historically too, there are inscriptions, cast in stone, that attest that temples were managed wholly and entirely by local communities.
  • Similar scheme shall be instituted for all religious institutions in the spirit of equality of all religions.