NEED FOR GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS IN INDIA

The author Mayank Raj Pranav is a 2nd Year student pursuing BBA.LLB from Gujarat National Law University. His areas of interest include criminal law, constitutional law, the law of contracts, and the law of torts.

INTRODUCTION

Indian Democracy is represented by its written constitution. The majority population of this subcontinent is Hindus. The Hindu religion is viewed as perhaps the most seasoned religion on the planet. Hindu religion includes itself a few stations/sub positions of various shapes and diverse tones. The position and sub-standing additionally vary from State to State or from region to region. The training likewise fluctuates to an enormous degree. The Hindu religion, best-case scenario, can be viewed as an instance of solidarity in variety. The Hindu religion depends on sacred texts, for example, Upanishads, Veda, Geetha, and so forth Hindu religion is viewed as a lifestyle. Hindu religion licenses love of even lifeless things Ashwatha vriksha is revered/Nagadevatas are loved/soil is venerated/ocean is adored to give not many examples. The rule that everyone must follow, which is normal and uniform all through the nation across all states and association domains for the strict minorities, isn't so for the Hindu greater part. This oddity is apparent from the way that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act isn't uniform the nation over. In a 'secular' nation, which should have equivalent regard for all the religions, how is it possible that a state could have control of just Hindu Temples and not other strict revering places? Why the HR and CE Act is sanctioned in certain states and not so in some different states? Things being what they are, it consequently tosses a central issue, regardless of whether the contract of HR and CE Act is Constitutional? This article deals with the different aspects of the broad topic covering the need for government control over religious and charitable endowments in India.

BACKGROUND

Around 1840, the then British Government started giving up the administration of temples. They requested some from the conspicuous mutts in Tamil Nadu to care for a portion of the significant temples and endowments. The Heads of Mutts who were glad to take over the administration of these temples so they are run as they should be run, were adequately cautious to get composed archives or "Muchalikas" from the British Government, which guaranteed them that they would not reclaim the temples from the Mutts. Subsequently, some significant temples went under full oversight and responsibility for Mutts and the Mutts ran them capably and proficiently. The main roles of worship and use of funds implied for the upkeep of temples and lead ceremonies were never dismissed by the Heads of Mutts or officials. While a couple of temples were in this manner splendidly controlled by the Mutts, a great many different sanctuaries in the then Madras Presidency were given over to the individual trustees with the then Government assuming almost no part in regulating them.

In 1925, the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1923 (Act I of 1925) was passed by the neighborhood Legislature with the object of accommodating better administration and organization of certain religious endowments. The Act separated temples into what are known as Excepted and Non-excepted temples. Following the Act which came into power, its legitimacy was tested on the ground that the Act was not truly passed. Thus, the council sanctioned the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, Act II of 1927 repealing Act I of 1925. This Act was amended now and then. It is pointless to allude to the progressions presented later. At the very least the Act was amended by 1946 by ten Acts I of 1928, V of 1929, IV of 1930, XI of 1931, XI of 1934, XII Of 1935, XX of 1938, XXII of 1939, V of 1944, and X of 1946. An extreme change was presented, notwithstanding, by Act XII of 1935.

The Government was not happy with the forces of the Board at that point existing and they dressed the Board with a significant and exceptional force by presenting another Chapter, Ch. VI-A, by which jurisdiction was given to the Board to inform a temple for reasons to be given by it. Subsequently, it tends to be seen that even in the pre-independence time, the Board had methodically combined its forces to dominate and oversee temples. This terrible intercession by Government applied uniquely to Hindu Institutions.

VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14, 25 & 26 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Article 14 precludes discrimination. It further disallows a self-assertive, nonsensical Act concerning the state. Correspondence and equivalent assurance is accessible to all residents of the nation. There can never be discrimination by the State. These standards are very much settled.

In Moseb Kaba Chowdhary and Anr. v. Territory of West Bengal manages Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has administered as under: It is grounded by the choices of Supreme Court that Article 14 censures separation by a meaningful law as well as by a law of strategy.

In M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair and Anr. v. Territory of Kerala and Ors., the Supreme Court again sees in paras 19 and 21 perusing as under: India is a secular nation. Secularism has been embedded in the Preamble because of the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. The object of embedding the said word was to illuminate explicitly the high thoughts of secularism and the uprightness of the country on the ground that these organizations are exposed to impressive anxieties and strains and personal stakes have been attempting to elevate their narrow-minded finishes to the extraordinary disadvantage of the public great. It is present all around settled:

1. The constitution denies the foundation of a religious State.
2. The Constitution isn't simply denied to set up any religion of its own but at the same time is restricted to recognize itself with or preferring a specific religion.
3. Secularism under the Indian Constitution doesn't mean the constitution of a nonbeliever society however it simply implies the equivalent status of all religions with no inclination for or victimization of any of them.

From these case laws, what is obvious to us is that segregation is a supplication accessible with the end goal of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Law is likewise all around settled that in case of any segregation, it is hit by Article 14. Equivalents are to be dealt with similarly and rises are not to be treated with un-rises to. Equivalent treatment is the establishment of Article 14 of the constitution. The state can't segregate in the issue. Be that as it may, separation whenever claimed, at that point the State needs to legitimize segregation by worthy material with adequate reasons. The sensible arrangement is reasonable.

In K. Mukundaraya Bhenoy v. The State of Mysore, the court has thought about the right of administration of a strict section sanctuary. The Court decided all things considered that a law that removes the privilege of administration from the hands of a strict division out and out and vests it in some other authority would add up to an infringement of the privilege ensured under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. In the ensuing Judgment announced in Angappa Goundan v. Kuppammal, the Court thought about the topic of Hindu public temples. The Court saw Mukundarya Shenoy's case and after seeing, a Division Bench of this Court has decided that the Hindus in the bigger sense, including all segments of Hindus, comprise a strict category inside the significance of Articles 21 and 26 of the Constitution of India. This Judgment would show that in the matter of temple administration, the state can't segregate between Hindu Religious groups vis-a-vis, the Hindu temple. The irrelevance to the Hindu strict administration by the Hindu Religious category is additionally hit by Article 14 of the constitution of India. The state has fizzled in its obligation to legitimize its rejection of the current realities of this case.

The Supreme Court had said in the Judgment in Bal Patil and Anr. v. Association of India. The high court has decided that "Differential medicines to phonetic minorities dependent on language inside the state is justifiable yet on the off chance that similar idea for minorities based on religion is energized, the entire nation, which is now underclass and social clashes because of different troublesome powers, will additionally confront division based on strict varieties." Therefore, we have no dithering in holding that on this ground likewise, the Act Buffers from infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras versus Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, the SC has rules has under The judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the allure identified with the Shirur Mutt and the judgment by another Constitution Bench in the Venkataramana Devaru versus Province of Mysore are milestone decisions that Courts in India are relied upon to follow concerning Article 26 of the Indian Constitution and Denomination rights. The Hon'ble Supreme Court concurred with the Hon'ble Madras High Court that a large number of the segments of the 1951 HR and CE Act were ultra vires the Constitution. It likewise unmistakably saw that while the governing body could look to manage the organization, it should consistently leave the organization to the category. The Advocate General of Madras concurred with the Court and said he was unable to protect those areas.

CONCLUSION

Hindu religion is probably the oldest religion accessible in India. It has the backing of exceptionally old sacred texts, conviction, and so forth, those accept, customs, rehearses, and so on, are to be secured, except if the equivalent is completely restricted to any piece of the Constitution of India. Along these lines, while on one hand, the strict rights as far as Article 25 are to be ensured and then again, mal organization, monetary abnormalities by any strict foundation must be taken genuine note of in the bigger interest of sanctuary teach itself. The state needs to attract an equilibrium keeping up temple devotee/temple organization as far as the Constitution of India. Since the very Act is held to be unfair in this application, it is absurd to seriously different parts and henceforth the whole Act must be struck down as illegal. We likewise consider it legitimate to see that the goal of the Legislature is by all accounts a uniform law for all Hindu strict foundations. On the off chance that that is along these lines, as has been done in Andhra Pradesh as far as the Supreme court, the Government would be very much encouraged to have a commission comprised for sanctuary issues and include all non-Hindu strict pioneers/matadipathis/strict experts/social reformers and different experts and from there on continue to pass a uniform law regarding the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Commissioner, Hindu v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, The Government can likewise consider having diverse administrative measures for temples/maths/Jains and so forth, contingent on their strict conviction and so on, and obviously, inside the four corners of the constitution. Notwithstanding, it is for the assembly to choose the strict reformative law as far as this strategy of a uniform law for Hindu religions. We would leave it to the Legislature to take an authoritative choice in terms of the Constitution. In any case, we consider it legitimate to see that the Government would do incredible support of the Hindu society by wiping out all the shrewd and degenerate practices, if at all predominant in Hindu establishments. That would go far in Hindu temple reforms.

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.

References:

1. 1956 AIR 536.
2. (2005) 11 SCC 45.
3. AIR 1960 Kant 18.
4. (1970) 1 MLJ 170.
5. AIR 2005 SC 3172.
6. 1954 AIR 282.