Questioning the prayer for repeal of legal guidelines regulating temples and releasing them from authorities management, the Supreme Court on Thursday requested one of many petitioners what was the necessity for it and stated that the current system, below which the temples additionally “have” Has fulfilled the nice wants of the “Society”, has been working for a very long time.
The courtroom stated that reversing it could “turn back the clock”, when “all these temples … these centers of religion, became places of wealth”.
The Supreme Court sought “certain material” in assist and stated it could subsequent hear on September 19.
The bench noticed: “There is 150 years of historical past… These temples, or locations of worship, or these sects – they’ve labored in a specific method. Which means they’ve served the bigger wants of not solely their temple but in addition of the society. Why did we abolish the inam (land given by the rulers of the previous)?
“You are literally turning the clock back, because all these temples, centers of religion had become places of wealth. Some of them, like Sringeri, etc. voluntarily left it. Now if we have to take back, we are fine. Will arrive at the same point,” Justice S Ravindra Bhat, who was a part of a two-judge bench headed by CJI UU Lalit, stated as senior advocate Arvind Datar, showing for the petitioner, identified that the primary such legislation is for non secular endowments. Act, 1863 was.
Justice Bhat stated that if such a state of affairs arises, “there must be some framework where, obviously, everything will not be used by the Center or that religion but will go back to the people”.
The courtroom was listening to a PIL by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who sought to declare that Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs have the fitting to manage their non secular locations – reminiscent of Muslims, Christians and Sikhs – with out state interference. Parsis take pleasure in equal rights.
Datar stated Upadhyay’s petition had challenged the Endowment Acts of varied states and held that solely Hindu endowments are regulated, whereas others aren’t. Similar petitions have additionally been raised within the pending petition of Dayanand Saraswati, he stated.
Datar stated the legislation is “a direct violation of Article 26(b). I have the right to manage my temples.”
Article 26(b) offers with the liberty to handle non secular affairs topic to public order, morality and well being.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, showing for the petitioner, additionally submitted that hundreds of temples have been closed on account of paucity of funds.
But the CJI known as these “broad statements” and “where are the documents” to again up the competition.
Sankaranarayanan stated that even when the problem of mismanagement is ignored, “the legal issue is huge”.
As he referred to the income from Tirupati, Justice Bhat stated, “It is usually a debate. After all, if it’s the seat of the temple, then it belongs to the individuals. So it has to return to the individuals in some type or the opposite. So Tirupati metropolis advantages. You have universities, an entire vary of providers… which have come up.”
But Sankaranarayanan stated many of those are by non-public endowments.
“Maybe,” Justice Bhat stated, “but then it is also through state enterprise. We have colleges in Delhi as well. [under Tirupati trust], are universities. What you mentioned may be different. I’m not talking about that.”
Sankaranarayanan requested why just one faith is used for this.
Justice Bhat replied, “One understands the place you might be reaching. It is a matter of the dimensions of the Prasad, maybe in Tirupati and even in Shirdi, so big…. Are you suggesting that it ought to be exterior the purview of regulation or ought to it’s solely close to these centres?
“We are saying please keep the same scale for everyone,” Sankaranarayanan stated. “In a secular state, you have to separate the church from the state. If the state is going to get closer to a religion, that’s the problem. We have to fix it.”
News bulletin , Click to get the very best interpreters of the day delivered to your inbox
The senior counsel stated that he’s not asking the courtroom to make a legislation on the problem however to eliminate these legal guidelines which violate Article 14.
Justice Bhat stated, ‘It is a matter. Then what’s going to you be left with…. The wealth that’s created, there is no such thing as a one to control it… there is no such thing as a legislation. there is no one to audit it, and you will be [the] The middle of energy in its personal method. ,
He stated, “You can’t evaluate (within the case of temples) with different religions. They could have their very own system of checks and balances – I don’t know that – however the scale (within the case of temples) is certainly completely different. “
Sankaranarayanan identified that the courtroom had already taken notice of comparable points within the Padmanabha Swamy temple case when some PILs raised the problem of mismanagement.
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
