The Supreme Court is hearing a PIL in which the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and Endowment Acts of all states has been challenged.
Key points
- The PIL is seeking to declare Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs have similar rights to administer their religious places without State interference like Muslims, Parsis and Christians.
- The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 which was allegedly used by the state government to “arbitrarily and unconstitutionally” take over the administration, management and control of these temples and Hindu religious institutions.
- The plea has challenged the constitutional validity and vires of sections 21, 23, 27, 28, 47, 49, 49B, 53, 55, 56 and 114 of the 1959 Act.
- The petitioner challenges these sections on the ground that these sections are violative of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, in as much as they grant the respondent-government absolute control over the appointment and dismissal of ‘archakas’ (priests) in the Hindu temples of Tamil Nadu.
- They say that Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs should have similar rights to establish, manage and maintain their religious places like Muslims, Parsis and Christians and that the state cannot abridge this right.
- Article 29 and 30 of the constitution only protected the cultural and educational rights of the minorities, and nothing else.
- The PIL complained that approximately 400,000 out of 900,000 temples in the country are under government control, whereas there is not a single church or mosque-related religious body where any control or interference of the government is seen.
- Religious endowments come under the concurrent list, authorising both the Centre and the states to frame their laws whereby states can exercise a degree of control over management, superintendence and levy over the religious places.
- However the Supreme Court bench, consisting the Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat, questioned the relevance of public interest litigation (PIL) noting that since all temple revenues come from society, they may very well be returned to the people by way of creating colleges and universities.
- The bench questioned the need to revise the 1863 Religious Endowments Act, noting that the statute has enabled temples to serve “larger needs of the society.”
