After Centre Opposes Hearing, Supreme Court Relegates Petitioners Challenging Hindu Religious Endowment Laws Of Southern States To High Courts

The Supreme Court today relegated the Petitioners who had approached the Court challenging the constitutionality of various provisions of the Hindu Religious Endowments laws of the States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and the Union Territory of Pondicherry as long back as in the year 2012 to the respective High Courts.

The Central Government joined the State Governments in submitting that the matters should be heard by the respective High Courts first and not by the Supreme Court.

The Bench of Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of the cases, including a Writ Petition filed by Swami Dayananda Saraswati and others in the year 2012, by reserving liberty to the Petitioners to file their Writ Petitions before the respective High Courts.

The Court directed that the High Courts should consider various dimensions of the provisions in light of the socio-economic, cultural and religious aspects of the matter and that it may constitute an expert committee for assistance, if needed.

Submissions

Senior Advocate S. Guru Krishnakumar appearing for the Petitioners in the Writ Petition filed by Swami Dayananda Saraswati and others submitted that the matters challenge the validity of Religious Endowments laws of the States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and the Union Territory of Pondicherry and that the pleadings are complete in the matters. He submitted that the Union of India was impleaded on the last occasion.

"What is the stand of the Union of India?" Justice Nagarathna asked Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj.

"It is a state subject, the State has to regulate. I don't think the union can do much in the matter", the ASG replied.

Guru Krishnakumar then submitted that the Union of India had submitted on the last occasion that it would make its stand on the merits of the matter clear in writing.

ASG Natraj told the Court that he is also appearing for the UT of Pondicherry and submitted, "There are four legislations under challenge. These are all State-specific issues. In a particular State, the scheme of the Act will be different. To what extent regulation is required and how it is applied to a particular Temple in a particular situation will have to be first examined by the respective High Courts. Without that under Article 32....".

"You may kindly recollect, in Karnataka, Justice Rama Joyce Committee was constituted. Justice Rama Joyce committee independently examined all these aspects and made certain recommendations, and accordingly, amendments were introduced. It is for the respective states to examine the requirements of the States", the ASG added.

Towards the end of the hearing, after the Court had passed its order, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared and submitted, "Principally, Temples can never be under the control of the Government. Principally, it can never happen. If religion has no business in governance, governance has no business in religion. As simple as that." He later added, "Temples are not departments of the Government".

During the hearing, Justice Nagrathna asked, "Now there is some regulation of the Temples etc. under a statute. Now if you want this to go, that means you want deregulation. What will it be..".

Guru Krishnakumar submitted that many provisions are blatantly violative of the Constitution. He submitted that there are seven or eight substantive issues.

"Why have you not challenged it in the state High Courts?" Justice Nagrathna asked.

Guru Krishnakumar replied that they are relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court and that the decision will have ramifications across states.

"Each Act has to be considered independently. There can't be common arguments because the statutes of each State are different. Why don't you go to the High Courts? We will have the benefit of the wisdom of the High Court's Judgments. You can come here, you can have another round here", Justice Nagrathna said.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for a State government, submitted that the Court should consider whether it can have a single petition challenging statutes of multiple States. Senior Advocates Jaideep Gupta and Amit Anand Tiwari, appearing for different states, also submitted that the matters should be heard by the High Courts.

The Court then suggested that a representation be made to respective States, pointing out the grievances of the Petitioners and that the same be considered by the States, if necessary, with the assistance of Expert Committees. "In the State itself, there must be an application of mind. Suddenly, it should not come by way of a judicial verdict. You appear before them, let them constitute a committee, let them apply their minds to what you are saying", Justice Nagarathna said.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy, appearing as a petitioner-in-person, then submitted that States are "grabbing Temples" and that he has raised a different question about "takeover of Temples". "Takeover of the Temples cannot be permitted. Yes, corrections can be permitted", he submitted.

"There is not just a legal aspect to it. There is a socio-cultural, religious aspect to this. It can't be looked at purely from a legal point of view", Justice Nagrathna remarked.

Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, appearing for some of the Petitioners, submitted that provisions held to be illegal in the Shrirur Mutt case have been brought back. He added that the wisdom of the States is already before the Court in the form of their Counter Affidavits. He added that the Petitioners be heard briefly before being relegated to the High Court.

"Question of HRCE legislation falls under Entry 28 of the concurrent list. Therefore, the idea behind the filing of these petitions way back in 2009 was that the law can be laid down and the issue can be put to quietus across the board, as opposed to 15 different state legislations travelling from 15 different journeys before this Hon'ble Court from the High Courts. This has been pending since the last 16 years. Please give us one day in Court to make our submissions. 16 years we have been waiting for an opportunity, just give us one day", Sai Deepak submitted.

ASG Natraj then submitted, "You have to specifically point out the discrimination in a particular case, specific to the particular facts and historical events of the case", reiterating his stand that the matters should be heard separately by the respective High Courts.

"It is a matter which is black and white that is right before you, why should I go all the way to the High Court?" Dr. Swamy submitted.

Senior Advocate N. S. Nappinai also made submissions on behalf of the Petitioners.

Order of Court

The Court then proceeded to pass its order.

"Having regard to the challenge made to various provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of the respective states, we find that the Petitioners could be permitted to approach the respective High Courts to assail the said provisions. It is noted that in these petitions, the provisions under challenge are not only pertaining to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, but also the Pudechery Act of 1932, as well as the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1987. We find that the better way of ventilating the grievances of the Petitioners herein is to assail the provisions of the respective Acts before the respective jurisdictional High Courts, so as to enable the High Courts to better appreciate the dimensions of challenge of the provisions of the respective Acts. In the circumstances, we dispose of these petitions by reserving liberty to the Petitioners herein to file their Writ Petitions before the respective High Courts. Needless to observe that if such Writ Petitions are filed by the Petitioners herein before the respective High Courts, they should be considered having regard to the various dimensions of the provisions in light of the socio-economic and cultural and religious aspects of the matter, which are all historical aspects of the matter. The High Court is also at liberty to constitute an expert committee to have the assistance of the said committed for the purpose of deciding the cases if it so thinks fit. Consequently, these Writ Petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms", the Court ordered.

Discussions after Order was dictated

Counsel continued to make submissions even after the order was dictated. During the ensuing discussion, Justice Nagarathna remarked, "The entire economy earlier revolved around the Temple".

"Even now it revolves at the expense of the Temple. Unfortunately, My Lady, that is the problem", Sai Deepak replied.

"Economic impact of the Temple is so well known, I can say this as a student of History", Justice Nagarathna said, adding, "It (Temple) is not an individual's property, it is public property".

Sai Deepak replied, "It is the community's property, not even public property. My apologies for saying so. The unfortunate reality is, the surplus funds are going towards feathering the nest of the HRCE administrators as opposed to benefiting the community or devotees".

The Senior Advocate Tiwari for Tamil Nadu opposed this submission and said that everything is accounted for and the State has invested more than 100 crores last year for the restoration of old Temples.

"After having melted the gold of Temples", Sai Deepak responded.

"What we read in newspapers, every time there is a change in the government, there are changes made to these Temple boards. Their own people are appointed. These are all things which will ultimately affect...", Justice Nagrathna said.

Cause Title: Sh. Dayananda Saraswati Swamiji & Ors. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Writ Petition (c) No. 476/2012) with connected cases