The Last Word On The State And Temples

Context: A critical analysis of the movement seeking to free Hindu temples from state control and demanding to replace State by the community of Hindus.

Arguments in support of the demand

• Inspired by the West: Where the idea of governments overseeing the management of religious institutions strikes as anathema to a secular, democratic republic.
• Fundamental right of community: Article 26 grants to every “religious denomination” right to establish institutions, to manage its affairs in matters of religion, to own and acquire property, and to administer that property in accordance with the law.
• Biased state interference: It is alleged that state interference dominant in Hindu religious affairs only.

Arguments against the demand

• Lack of clarity: On who constitutes or who selects the community of Hindus (to oversee the management of temples).
• Underlying private interests to reinstate hierarchical divisions: By going back to status quo ante that existed before State intervened in the management of temples.
  • Unjust consequence: Reassertion of social powers by dominant groups.
• Against the views of the Constituent assembly: Left unattended, religion could lead to a perpetuation of historical evils; thus, religion cannot be treated as a subject beyond the sovereign powers of State.
• Provision of Constitutional Checks and balances: Protections of Article 25 and 26 are restricted to matters within the domain of religion, and Government has every authority to regulate and restrict a secular function performed by a public religious institution.
  • For e.g. Madras enacted a Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act in 1951, which was replaced in 1959 by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act.
  • The right to freedom of religion under Article 25 and 26 are subjected to public order, morality and health.
  • In the Shirur Mutt case (1954) – Court recognised that the basic framework of the 1951 law was in perfect consonance with authority vested in the State under Articles 25 and 26.
• Essential role of State: As a tribune of social justice
  • Historical expressions of state sovereignty extending to religion: Hindu kings employing ministries to supervise temples and charitable bodies, Mughal rulers’ appointments to manage Waqf etc.
  • Noble objectives: Statutes of 1951 and 1959 were framed with the objective to ensure that Hindu public endowments were being put to use for true purposes for which endowments were made.
  • Equal treatment of all religion: Besides Hindu laws, the government also regulate other religions like Muslims (Waqf Act, 1995).

Conclusion: Demand for transparency and to hold State responsible to administrative standards prescribed under the law shall be the way forward, instead of a riskier position demanding state withdrawal.