|
Here are
two articles on the latest Supreme Court (SC) ruling
A)
SC curbs State bid to control temples
Pratap Patnaik,
New Delhi:
Deccan Herald, Aug 14, 2009
B)
Pvt temples out of govt reach now
TIMES
NEWS NETWORK
August 14
(?), 2009
Attachment A
SC curbs State bid
to control temples
Pratap Patnaik, New Delhi:
Deccan Herald, Aug 14, 2009
The Supreme Court on
Friday directed that the Karnataka government may not take over the management
of any temple in the State under a law enacted in 1997.
A Bench headed by Justice R V Raveendran stayed Section 25 of the Karnataka
Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, that permitted
the State Government to take over the management of temples. “Section 25 of the
Act is stayed,’’ the Bench said after the State Government failed to defend
itself with reasoned arguments.
Appearing for Udupi and Dakshina Kannada Temples Management Association, senior
advocate K K Venugopal and advocate Sharan Thakur sought direction restraining
the State Government from taking over the management of temples. State
Government advocate Sanjay Hegde said the Supreme Court had earlier stayed the
Karnataka High Court ruling.
“If
committees are constituted under the 1997 Act, the applicants will be put in
irreparable injury and hardship,’’ said a petition filed by the Sahasra
Lingeswar temple and others.
In September 2006, a Karnataka High Court Division Bench comprising Justices
Gururajan and C R Kumaraswamy struck down the entire Act as unconstitutional.
The Bench stated it was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the
Constitution. However, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court order on April 2,
2007, following a special leave petition (SLP) by the State Government.
The State Government’s argument was two-fold: protecting the livelihood of
70,000 priests and managing hundreds of temples and trusts.
These issues were at the centre of a controversy between the temples and the
state government ever since the Act came into being.
The State Government had submitted that a high-powered committee headed by
Justice M Rama Jois had been formed to look into the grievances of the priests
and other office bearers of the temples.
The priests and temple trusts challenged the Act in the High Court, claiming it
was discriminatory and not uniformly applicable to all religious institutions,
including mutts.
The State
Government had issued notices to over 200 temples in
North Karnataka, including the Banashankari temple in Badami,
Veerabhadreshwara temple at Godachi in Raibagh taluk of
Belgaum district and the
Hanuman temple in Haveri, informing them about the appointment of committees
that would recommend taking over their management.
DH News
Service
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/17158/sc-curbs-state-bid-control.html
Attachment B
Pvt temples out of govt reach now
TIMES
NEWS NETWORK
August 14
(?), 2009
Bangalore: Private temples needn’t fear intrusion by the government now. In a
judgment that brings relief to hundreds of private temples in Karnataka, the
Supreme Court on Friday modified the stay order of
April 2, 2007
with respect to the Karnataka Hindu Charitable Institutions and Charitable
Endowments Act.
This
means Karnataka cannot take over of temples or appoint any committee to govern
them. The state, following the stay, was issuing notices to take over the
management under Section 25 of the Act.
Advocate
G S Kannur said Section 25 isn’t applicable to Sikh, Jain or Buddhist temples
and, therefore, discriminatory. A long-drawn debate The Question Of Govt
Managing Private Temples Has
Engaged Court For Years
Bangalore: Should governments manage — howsoever remotely — private temples?
This question has been engaging courts for a while now.
In 2006,
the Karnataka high court division Bench headed by Justice R Gururajan had
quashed the entire Karnataka Hindu Charitable Institutions and Charitable
Endowments Act. This followed an appeal by Hindu temples, trustees, archaks and
others aggrieved by the HC judgment of September 9, 2005, which upheld the Act.
The Bench had noted that the Act is violative of the right to equality under
Article 14 as it discriminates between temples and mutts and mutt-run temples.
Mutts are not included in the Act.
Devotees of Hindu temples provide kanike (offerings) for temple purposes and
it cannot be spent for other non-Hindu causes without any relevance to Hindus.
The Bench had objected to the government spending 5% of the temple turnover
money for other purposes. Money is taken out of Hindu temples to provide for
poor institutions of other religions. The Gururajan Bench had objected to this
provision by specifying that there can be no compulsion only from Hindu temples
to provide assistance to such institutions. Such contribution cannot be
compulsory.
The apex court in 2007 had granted a stay on the Gururajan Bench order and
the state had been issuing notices to take over temple management.
toiblr.reporter@timesgroup.com
|
