Tag: religiousinstitutions

India is a land of religions and temples. The country is said to be a live example of Unity in Diversity. It has so many religions, faiths, and sects that the country may be termed as the confluence of the religions of the world. The Indian constitution protects the right to religion as a fundamental right under Article 25, whose second clause carves an exception, encouraging the government to make any law that regulates financial, economic, political, or secular activity related to religious practice or for providing social welfare. This was because India had a past of being dominated by the religion of the state mostly. This also ensured the secular structure of the Indian economy. Establishing and maintaining religious and charitable institutions is recognized by Article 26. Public morality, health, and order are exceptions shared by both articles.

The right to freedom of religion is guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26, but the Constitution does not define what is the meaning of the term “religion”. The only indication it offers is that this term is ambiguous. India is a secular state, and hence the state has to remain separated from any activity related to religion. But it has the right to make laws according to the exceptions provided under Articles 25 and 26. In Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala¹, the Supreme Court declared that “religious freedom restricted by socio-economic reforms”, and “communal advancements” have both been held in check by India’s secularism.

The court determined in Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore²

“Although Article 25(1) deals with the rights of individuals, Article 25(2) controls both clause (1) of Article 25 and clause (b) of Article 26, and covers more comprehensive topics, and hence refers to the rights of communities.”

 In, Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kasi Vishwanth Temple, vs. State of U.P³.,  the Supreme Court ruled as under:

“The religious freedom protected by Articles 25 and 26 is meant to serve as a blueprint for community life and supervise each religion to act in consonance with its cultural and social demands to construct an egalitarian social order. Therefore, Articles 25 and 26 guarantees the freedom of conscience to connect with one’s Creator and live a religious life while also maintaining consonance between the rigidity of the right to religious belief and faith and their intrinsic limitations in terms of religion, religious beliefs, and religious practices.”

In the same case⁴, Court also declared that

“Article 25 and 26 does not protect every aspect of the religion. The constitution also negates the insurance of each and every religious activity without being interfered with. Articles 25 and 26 are to be seen with a practical approach and every human activity cannot be protected under the shade of religion.” 

It is very challenging to define terms like “religion,” “religious beliefs or practices,” or “matters of religion.” This right is not absolute and the state is capable of making legislation about the activities related to it.

Charitable Purpose

The definition of charitable purpose includes, under Section 2 of the Charitable Institutions Act, 1890 the following matters

1. The fund for the relief of the poor.
2. The purpose of education
3. The purpose of Medical relief and 
4. Any other object of the General Public

But it does not include

1. Religious teaching or worship Purpose.

So it specifically speaks to include and exclude such matters as provided above. Whether the religious endowment is a charitable endowment? No. The religious endowment is for religious purposes and has nothing to do with charitable purposes.

Then how and why the Hindu religious institutions are managed under the control of the government? What is the debate over free Hindu temples? The history is too long but is still continuing and has its effects.

In A.V.K.V. Temple v. State of Uttar Pradesh⁵

“These Articles guarantee the freedom to follow one’s religion and to engage in ritualistic activity. The Right to manage the temple or endowments is not integral to religion or religious practice or religion as such which is amenable to statutory control.  The secular activities are practiced in accordance with the legislation enacted by the State, except the practices which are integral to the religion are protected under these Articles. The law makes it abundantly clear that running a religious institution or endowment is a secular activity, and the state has the authority to enact laws to regulate it.”

The Religious Endowment Act, 1863

The Religious Endowment Act, 1863 which was first enacted for the area of Bengal then, has been notified in most of the areas of the Country now. This Act is eminently important while sections 21, 22, and 23 of this Act are the root of this article.

But the preamble to this Act and several orders for its notification in several states are of great concern. The preamble to the Act speaks that for the use of the rents and produce of the land provided to religious institutions as a grant to maintain the public structures, the appropriation of endowments made for the maintenance of such religious institutions, and repairs and preservation of buildings connected therewith. So firstly, it was made to operate in all religious institutions. But due to the effect of Act 34 of 1964, this Act does not apply to any wakf to which The Wakf Act, 1954 applies. The Wakf Act 1954 does not have any provision as contained in Act 20 of  1863. It does not apply to the state of Madras by Act 22 of 1959. Recently, this Act came into force in Jammu and Kashmir by Act 34 of 2019. An important concern to note here is the enactment of the Hindu religious and Charitable endowments Act in the state of Tamil Nadu in 1959, which controls nearly 37000 temples in the state.

Section 21 of this Act makes provisions that when an endowment is made for religious and secular purposes partly, the board of revenue before transferring the property to the trustee, manager, or superintendent or to any committee appointed, shall make it clear about the portion which must remain in the authority of the said board for the secular purpose and also what amount annually shall be charged on the property which is transferred to the said transferee to the said transferor for a secular purpose. Under Section 22 the government is barred from resuming the superintendence of property granted for religious activities or from taking part in its management or apportionment of any endowment for such maintenance or from nominating or appointing any trustee, manager, or superintendent except as provided in the Act.

The phrase “except as provided in this Act” is the exception carved out for the support of government control over such institutions.

Section 23 provides that the Act will not affect the provisions and regulations made under the Act for the preservation and prevention of any injury to antique; historical; or architectural buildings except if they relate to religious institutions. 

The Charitable Endowments Act, 1890

A treasurer is appointed by the Central government for India while he is appointed by the government of the state for such state under section 3 of the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890. An agreement is made between the central government and the person making the application for the charitable purpose of the endowment.

The government and the treasurer are indemnified under the said Act of 1890 for irregularities as provided under section 14.

The Hindu Religious And Charitable Act, 1997

In the State of Karnataka, The Hindu Religious And Charitable Act, 1997 is enacted by repealing the preceding Acts prevailing in the state. This Act needs special mention here because of the reasons given in the preamble of this Act.

The reasons which need to be displayed in this article are–

1. For the regulation of the alienation of the property improperly
2. For the purpose of the grant by the government
3. For Checking the mismanagement of the institution. 
4. For maintaining the common pool arising out of the surplus funds of institutions notified by the government.
5. For maintenance of the needy institutions by an independent committee.

Also, this Act is not applicable to

1. the Matths and temples attached to the matths.

What is important to note is the nature of those needy institutions for which a common pool is made. Whether the government recognizes the Hindu religious institutions only or all the institutions irrespective of the religion.

An endowment is provided by the endower for a particular institution. The endowed wish to use his endowment for the purpose of such an institution, and if it is not possible to use it like this, then at least for Hindu religious institutions.

In fact, the supreme court in a case⁶ has noticed in Articles 25(1) and 26(b), the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.

In the area of managing the common pool fund, admirable objects are offered. However, a close examination of some purposes reveals that they appear to be arbitrary in nature. It is important to remember that cash is taken from the Hindu temple. Money is poured by Hindus. It might be a noble gesture to donate it to a struggling institution of another faith. But it can’t come solely from donations to the Hindu temple. The State is required to give these institutions the assistance they require. However, Hindu temples cannot be forced to help these institutions; they may do so voluntarily, but that is not sufficient under the Act’s initial provisions. Under Clause (h) of Section 19, Government has rightly chosen to say that the administration can be for the establishment and maintenance of Hindu children. However, Sections (1) and (j) do not contain those words. This Court does not, under any circumstances, advocate that underfunded institutions of other faiths not receive assistance; rather, it asks who should receive assistance and how. After all, devotees of Hindu temples donate Kanika, or cash, to that Hindu temple for use in maintaining the temple, and it cannot be used for non-Hindu purposes that have no bearing on Hindus. Even though Hinduism does not explicitly forbid such donations, it is still preferable that they only be used for Hindu institutions. Otherwise, it is very likely that Hindu institutions will request support or maintenance from other religious institutions, which could lead to unwelcome religious disputes.

Act 14 of 1920

The statement and object of most of the Acts for the control of the religious and charitable endowments provide for reducing the mismanagement of these institutions. But if this research is not in the wrong direction, there is Act number 14 of 1920 also known as – 

The charitable and religious trusts Act,1920 provides under section 3, the power to move to court with regard to the furnishing of particulars of the trust of a Charitable or religious nature and also to audit the accounts of the said trust.

The Official Trustees Act, 1913

Under the Official Trustees Act, 1913, the official trustee is barred from taking any trust of religious character for business purposes under section 3.

The Official Trustee shall not save as provided by any rules made under this Act, except any trust for a religious purpose or any trust subject to any rule made by the central government under section 30 which involves the management or carrying on of any business purpose 

Conclusion

The government has its own reasons to manage the temples and religious institutions. One such reason is the mismanagement by the religious boards of the funds or endowments they receive. But this is a general problem and it can be scrutinized every three months through a scheme prevailing in the world as auditing. The second reason which seldom gets revealed is the big amount of money collected as an endowment which is helping the government to run various projects. But religious endowments are not to run such projects.

If an endower wishes to endow any property for a secular purpose, why he would endow it to religious institution of his choice whether it is a Temple, Mosque, Dargah, Church, Gurudwara, or any institution of religious nature. The answer is very well clear by the court in a decision that the religious nature of these activities ends as soon as these endowments are endowed to the deity or temple. The management of endowments thereafter acquires a secular nature.⁷

---

Citations

1. AIR 1973 SC 1461
2. AIR1958 SC 255
3. 1997 (4) SC 124
4. ibid
5. ibid
6. AIR 1963 SC 1636
7. Bairagi Mekap v. Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee, AIR 1972 Orrisa 10

This article is written by Somnath Sharma, a Law Graduate.

Introduction

As per Places of Worship Act, it is “an Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”

What guidelines do the 1991 Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act contain?

In 1991, against the backdrop of the Ram Mandir agitation, the Parliament of the PV Narasimha Rao government passed this law.

• This Act preserves a house of worship’s religious identity as it was on August 15, 1947.
• A religious place of worship, or a portion of a religious place of worship, may not be converted into a place of worship for a different religion or a different denomination of the same religion, according to Section 3 of the Act.
• All appeals, lawsuits, or other procedures about changing a place of worship’s religious character must come to a stop at the effective date of the Act, according to Section 4(2) of the Act. Additionally, no new appeals will be accepted.
• It is crucial to remember that legal action may be taken if the place of worship’s religious nature is changed beyond the deadline of August 15, 1947.
• The Sets of Worship Act also places a positive obligation on the State to preserve all places of worship’s religious character in the manner that it did at the time of independence.

Exceptions

The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, governs ancient and historical monuments as well as archaeological sites and remains.

• Any disagreement that has been resolved amicably between the parties, any litigation that has been definitively resolved or dismissed, and any conversion of property that occurred prior to the start of the Act.
• Additionally, the Act does not apply to the Ayodhya temple known as Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid. This law will take precedence over all other laws now in place.

Efficacy of the Act

• The Places of Worship Act is inextricably linked to a secular state’s duty.
• Equality between all faiths.
• An affirmation of the solemn obligation placed on the State to uphold and defend the equality of all faiths as a fundamental constitutional principle and a component of the Constitution.

The Act’s penalties

• According to Section 6 of the Act, it carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison as well as a fine.
• When someone attempts to conduct an offence or help carry out a crime, they are nonetheless subject to penalty under subsection (1) even though they did not take any steps to actually commit the crime.
• Anything in section 116 of the IPC (45 of 1860) will be punishable with the punishment specified for the offence if anybody aids or conspires to commit an offence under subsection (1).

How does the petition violate the ruling made in Ayodhya?

• The statute was mentioned by the Constitution Bench, which was chaired by former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, in the 2019 Ayodhya judgement, and it was noted that it expresses the secular values of the Constitution and strictly forbids retrogression.
• The statute, according to the court, protects secularism by forbidding changes to a place of worship’s status following Independence.
• “Historical wrongs cannot be righted by the people taking the law into their own hands,” the five-judge Bench warned against additional attempts to alter the character of a house of worship.
• Parliament has explicitly said that in order to preserve the nature of houses of public worship, the past and its wrongs shall not be used as tools to oppress the present and the future.
• The State is addressed by the law just as much as every other American citizen is. Its standards bind all those in charge of running the country’s activities.
• These standards put Article 51A’s Fundamental Duties into practice and as such are mandates that benefit all citizens.
• In contrast to what the Supreme Court stated in the Ayodhya Verdict, the current petition challenges the law on the grounds that it infringes secularism.

Views of the Supreme Court

• The Constitution Bench referred to the statute in the 2019 Ayodhya judgement and stated that it embodies the secular values of the Constitution and forbids retrogression.
• Thus, the legislation is a legislative tool created to safeguard the secular aspects of Indian politics, which are one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

Petition concerning Places of Worship Act 1991

• “The Centre has banned remedies against illegal encroachment on places of worship and pilgrimage, and now Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs cannot file a lawsuit or seek a high court under Article 226,” the plea stated. As a result, they won’t be allowed to reinstate their places of worship and pilgrimage, including temple endowments, in accordance with Articles 25 and 26, and the invaders’ illegal barbaric deeds would go on forever.
• Additionally, the petition claimed that the law was against the Constitution’s secularism principle.
• Some contend that “pilgrimage sites” or “burial grounds” are covered by the State List and that the centre was therefore powerless to enact regulations in this area. However, the centre had contended in Entry 97 that it may do so under the residuary power of the union list.

Why is the law under challenge to our cultural practices in the name of secularism?

The first religious parliament was held in Delhi in 1984, with about 558 Hindus in attendance. They planned to launch a national campaign encouraging Hindus to claim the holy sites in Varanasi, Mathura, and Ayodhya. The movement grew in power after the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid Conflict in 1990. The Hindu religious groups concentrated on two mosques:

(1) Shahi Idgah Mosque, next to Lord Krishna Temple in Mathura

(2) Gyanvapi Mosque, next to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi, despite the urge to lay claim to over 3000 mosques in the sites indicated above.

The petition was submitted in 1991 on behalf of Swayambhu Jyotirlinga Bhagwan Vishweshwar, the principal deity of the temple, by attorney Vijay Shankar Rastogi. Rastogi asserts in his petition that Maharaja Vikramaditya built the temple there about 2,050 years ago, where the current mosque now stands. He demanded that the Gyanvapi mosque be removed from the area, that Hindus be granted ownership of the entire parcel of property, and that they be granted the ability to practise their religion inside the mosque.

Petition filed for the Gyanvapi Mosque

• A request was made to the Supreme Court by BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in opposition to several clauses of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991.
• The Act is being challenged because it forbids any community from claiming the places of worship of another community. This ban is questioned as being legitimate.
• The Places of Worship Act of 1991, according to a petition, is “arbitrary, unreasonable, and retrospective.”
• Sections of the Act dealing with the bar on legal claims were the subject of the petition, which argued that they violated secularism.
• Additionally, it is claimed that the August 15, 1947 deadline is “arbitrary, unreasonable, and retrospective” and prevents Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, and Hindus from petitioning the courts to “reclaim” their places of worship.
• It essentially robs people of their ability to use the legal system to seek redress and get justice.
• According to the petition, “fundamentalist barbarous invaders” “invaded” and “encroached” upon such locations.
• The petition claims that the law makes it acceptable for invaders to destroy sites of worship in the past. It is puzzling how the birthplace of Ram could be exempt from the legislation but not Krishna’s.

According to the petition, Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act:

• Violates one’s ability to worship, practise, and spread religion (Article 25),
• Right to control, maintain, and dispense with religious and pilgrimage sites (Article 26),
• The right to protect culture (Article 29)
• Antithetical to the State’s obligation to safeguard historic sites and maintain religious cultural heritage under Article 49 (Article 51A).

Conclusion

According to the Act, regardless of its past, every house of public worship that was open on the day of our independence, or 15 August 1947, will maintain its religious character on that day. The filing of lawsuits for such purposes of conversion is prohibited under Section 4, even though Section 3 prohibits the conversion of houses of worship. Thus, the Act’s purpose is evident.

The text of Section 4 of the Act provides a further basis for the dispute; another argument asserts that the clause forbids the right to judicial relief. Given that India has a long history of Muslim conquest and dominance, one key background of this Act is the claim that it discriminates against Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists.

As per the petition:

Hindus would not have received justice if the Ayodhya case had not been resolved. Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs all regularly pay respect to their houses of worship. The ‘Hindu law principle’ is also mentioned in this passage: “Temple property is never lost even if it is enjoyed by strangers for years, and even the King cannot take property away because the deity is an embodiment of God and is a juristic person, represents infinite, the timeless, and cannot be confined to the shackles of time.” Therefore, a thorough reading of the writ petition can give a good indication of the petition’s goals. The petitioner contends that they have a right to have past wrongs corrected, especially now that the nation is independent, and that they are working to redress those wrongs. The petition clearly has religious overtones, and any discussion of the legitimacy of the measure will undoubtedly bring up significant legal issues.

References

1. Places of Worship Act 1991.
2. Places of Worship Act (Special Provision Act) 1991.

This article is written by Aditi Jangid, from Delhi Metropolitan Education (Affiliated to GGSIPU).

---

INTRODUCTION

Worshippers can unleash a temple’s full potential by liberating it. Temples can be elegantly and superbly maintained if they are left in the care of the worshipers. There are many different ways and modules that a temple can run. The gurudwaras provide the community with free meals in the form of langars, which helps many people by feeding the hungry. In a similar way, a budget and a plot of land should be allocated to temples so that they can focus the majority of their resources there. They would be able to perform a vast array of extra activities, such as helping during the current epidemic stage and during natural disasters like earthquakes and tidal waves. They are then able to respond to disasters more quickly and efficiently than the government because of their strong relationships with the community. The government cannot do this since funding is channeled through the system. Temples are not just places of worship; they also contain art, history, and culture. Particularly in the state of Tamil Nadu, the temple tower serves as the state emblem. Since the temple is the centre of India, there are several “temple towns” there.

Because of their close ties to the community, they are able to respond to crises more swiftly and effectively than the government. Due to the system’s financial flow, the government is unable to accomplish this. Temples are not just places of prayer; they also house works of art and cultural artefacts. The temple tower is used as the state emblem, especially in Tamil Nadu. There are numerous “temple towns” there since the temple served as India’s administrative centre.

CONTROL BY THE GOVERNMENT OVER HINDU TEMPLES IS ILLEGAL

During a conference conducted in Delhi a few years ago, more than a dozen lawyers, campaigners, and other leaders of civil society expressed concern regarding the “illegal” government ownership of Hindu temples. As stated by Swami Paramatmanandaji, the secretary of HDAS, HDAS has petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of certain State Acts that govern temples. The symposium was organized by HDAS. A Supreme Court attorney named Pinky Anand argued that the law’s clauses authorizing the government to occupy temples were invalid and unenforceable.

The leader of the Temple Worshippers Society claims that the government has seized control of hundreds of temples that have assets worth millions of dollars. The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, which was passed in 1959, reinstated the same provisions that the Supreme Court had declared “illegal” in the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1951, which dealt with the appointment of executive officers in temples, he claimed. Several speakers emphasised the need for equality between Hindus and minorities while using Hindu victimisation and “discrimination” by the Indian government, court, and other state institutions as a bogey.

Former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Rama Jois said an 11-judge Supreme Court bench decided that minorities did not receive any special benefits under Article 30 of the Constitution. There is no need for a “right,” only a “protection.” “No organization or person should be given an advantage.” Hindus needed to employ other methods of agitation and building pressure since, in the opinion of Vishnu Sadashiv Kokje, the issue of governmental authority over temples could not be settled in court. K.N. Bhat, a Supreme Court lawyer who represented Lord Ram in the Ram Janmabhoomi case, cautioned that judicial remedies were fraught with uncertainty.

DEMAND TO UNCONTROL TEMPLES FROM THE GOVERNMENT

Religious institutions and places of worship in our nation have contributed significantly to the social and cultural fabric of our nation for millennia. According to data from the 2011 Census, there are roughly 30,00,000 places of worship in the United States as an example (Kishore, 2016). Hindu temples likely make up the majority of these, even though we don’t know their exact number. India has had government authority over temples ever since British rule, a position that was further cemented after independence by a number of state-level laws. All temples under their jurisdiction are currently governed by state endowment organizations. Given their poor performance throughout time in several areas, many have questioned whether it is a good idea to have temples controlled by the government. The demand is for the government to relinquish control over the temples. Court cases have recently been argued, and a private member’s bill has recently been introduced in parliament. In view of the Covid-19 pandemic debate, Hindu religious trusts should enjoy the same freedom from governmental oversight as Muslim and Christian religious trusts do. State governments in India oversee more than 4 lakh temples, but there is no corresponding control over Muslim and Christian religious institutions. The “Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HRCE) Act 1951,” which enables state governments to seize and control temples and their properties, is being called for modification.

More than 15 State governments oversee purely Hindu religious establishments, mainly temples, from the selection of temple administrators to the collection of service fees ranging from 13 to 18 per cent. The neighbourhood won’t be able to protect its own best interests as a result. They argue that this is unfair as only the Hindu community is targeted for such discrimination. In this scenario, secularism is violated. Additionally, as stated in the constitution, religious organizations in India cannot be administered by the government.

It is asserted that the British acquired control of the temple’s treasures after the Mughals. By enforcing the HRCE Act in 1951, the Jawaharlal Nehru administration continued its strategy of overseeing temples after India gained independence. This type of supervision is not present in mosques or churches. We also demand that all types of control be removed from temples. Famous Supreme Court attorney J. Sai Deepak urged the government to amend the Act, which he felt was the root of the issue. Tradition holds that the “Raja” (king) has no right to the wealth of the temple. It’s interesting to note that the Supreme Court has mandated in at least three landmark rulings that state governments hand up control of religious organizations to the people. This has not, however, been the case up until this point. Two petitions on this matter are currently being considered by the Supreme Court.

The former chief minister of Maharashtra and well-known Congress leader Prithviraj Chavan recently caused controversy by urging the government to seize all the gold owned by national religious trusts, which he estimated to be worth at least $1 trillion. He claims that gold bonds can be used to borrow gold at low-interest rates. “All religious trusts” is a general word that includes gurudwaras (Sikh) and temples (Hindu and Jains), both of which only accept gold as donations.

The Indian Constitution forbids discrimination based on religion, claims Vinod Bansal, the VHP’s national spokesperson. “However, there remains discrimination when it comes to the management of religious trusts.” I think it’s important to correct the errors that the British and the Nehru administration made in the past. He believed that Hindu religious trusts should be treated equally to Muslim and Christian religious trusts. The “Trust is a legal body,” hence it has reasonable or acceptable legal ramifications as well. A god’s offerings of gold and other materials are cherished as holy items. Since no one has the legal right to give it up in any situation, the gold monetization programme is also a hoax. Any plan to remove religious sites is forbidden by Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution. The Constitution, however, clearly says that nobody has the power to interfere with religious autonomy.

The evolution of the Gold Monetization Schemes was significantly influenced by state control of temples. State governments force temples to sell their gold even when they don’t want to. This issue is caused by state control over temples, which is illegal and discriminatory. Any plan that does not return the capital in gold causes a loss to the community. According to the reports, local governments are in charge of the majority of the temples in South India. The state government of Andhra Pradesh now controls about 34,000 temples. Just 7% of the Rs. 3,500 crore in contributions to the Tirupati Balaji temple were utilized to maintain the shrine. There have been several artefacts found for sale in the UK. As a secular nation, India should treat Hindu temples similarly to mosques and churches, according to one Indian official. From 1840, the British Government started to give up authority over the temples. The most well-known mutts in Tamil Nadu were chosen to represent some of the state’s most renowned temples and shrines.

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ACT

For the purpose of governing Indian democracy, there is a written constitution. Hindus make up the large bulk of the population in this area. Hinduism, one of the oldest religions in the world, is practised in India. Hinduism features a number of sub-castes, each of which has a unique colour and shape. In terms of caste and sub-caste, there are variances from state to state or area to region. There are also significant differences in how things are done. When Hinduism is at its best, it can be seen as an example of harmony among differences. It is based on ancient texts like the Vedas, Upanishads, Geetha, and others. Many people see Hinduism as a way of life. Hinduism, for instance, permits the worship of inanimate objects such as Ashwathavriksha, Nagadevatas, the earth, and the sea. These are but a few examples.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ACT

From 1840, the British Government started to give up authority over the temples. The most well-known mutts in Tamil Nadu were chosen to represent some of the state’s most renowned temples and shrines. When the Mutts assumed control of these temples, they made sure to obtain written assurances, or “Muchalikas,” from the British Government that the temples would never be returned to the Mutts as had been promised.

As a result, the Mutts obtained complete control over and ownership of a number of important temples, which they successfully managed. The Heads of Mutts and officers never lost sight of the fundamental justifications for worship or the usage of funds meant for ritualistic practice and temple upkeep. Hundreds of additional temples in the former Madras Presidency were left up to their various trustees, even though the Mutts managed a handful of them successfully. The previous Government had little to no duty in overseeing them.

The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, of 1923 was a piece of legislation intended to enhance the management and administration of specific religious endowments (Act I of 1925). According to the Act, there are two different sorts of temples: excepted temples and non-excepted temples. The law was challenged as soon as it took effect on the grounds that it had not been legitimately passed. As a result, the assembly passed the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, of 1926 (Act II of 1927, abolishing Act I of 1925).

There have been several changes made to this statute. There is no need to provide the most recent modifications. Let’s just say that there were ten revisions to the Act by the year 1946: Act I in 1928 (Act V in 1929), Act V in 1929 (Act IV in 1930), and so on. Act XII of 1935, on the other hand, brought about a significant change. The Government did not like the Board’s current powers, so they introduced Ch. VI-A, which allowed the Board the freedom to notify a temple for whatever reason it saw fit. As a result, the Board had established its authority to capture and manage temples before India gained its freedom. The Government’s vile behaviour only affected Hindu institutions.

It is important to note that the Board started the notification process for the Chidambaram Shri Sabhanayagar Temple in 1950 despite orders from the Madras Government to stop the notification process in 1947 and an order from the Hon’ble Madras High Court in 1939 prohibiting the Board from starting the notification process on petty grounds. India became a Republic on January 26, 1950, when it was freed from British rule, and its Constitution gave Indians certain basic rights. Parts of religious denominations gained unique religious and legal privileges. The Board also made an attempt to acquire control of three more temples, all of which are run by Gowd Saraswath Brahmin sects: Guruvayurappan, Udupi, and Mulkipetta’s Shri Venkataramana.

Each of them challenged the authority of the HRCE Board over the aforementioned religious entities. In the meanwhile, a new Hindu religious law known as the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, was passed by the Madras government. Since the Constitution upholds the right of individuals to practice their religion freely, it may seem strange that the government participates in religious organizations through the Statutory Boards. Temples are not mentioned in the Vedic Collection of Hymns and Prayers. In the region where the fire was ignited, it was claimed that sacrifices were made. In the later Brahmana period, temples for the gods were constructed. Due to a growing desire to acquire religious virtue, endowments like land were created for religious purposes at a later age. As a result, Hindu temples are created, funded, and preserved for the benefit of the larger Hindu population. A law was made to better manage, protect, and maintain temples and the endowed properties that are connected to them in order to accomplish goals while adhering to reasonable restrictions that do not restrict religious freedom as guaranteed by the constitution.

CONCLUSION

From the information provided above, it is evident that India must be free from government control or, at the very least, give believers the chance to manage religious institutions and carry out activities that they desire and are advantageous to the general public; the government should also support this effort as it will reveal which individuals are most qualified to oversee religious institutions. It’s also likely that followers abuse their power as it’s common in India to make money off the names of holy places and many well-known people visit India to take part in this corruption. But the government must at least give the devotees something. Hinduism is one of India’s oldest religions, having existed for countless years. Unless they are directly at odds with the Indian Constitution, these beliefs, rituals, and traditions should be preserved because they have existed for thousands of years. Therefore, even while Article 25 protects the right to practise one’s religion, any religious institution’s poor management and financial irregularities must be dealt with firmly for the sake of maintaining temple discipline. The state must strike a fine balance between upholding temple worshipers and temple administration in accordance with the Indian Constitution. Because the statute is deemed to be discriminatory in this instance, it must be ruled unconstitutional on its whole rather than being partially severed.

The Government should establish a commission for temple affairs that includes all non-Hindu religious leaders, matadipathis, religious experts, social reformers, and other experts in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of The Commissioner, Hindu v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, and then pass a uniform law in accordance with that decision. Depending on their religious convictions and the fundamental principles of our constitution, the government may also take different regulatory approaches for temples, math, Jain communities, etc.

The legislature, which finally decides whether or not to adopt religious reformative legislation, is in charge of establishing a consistent legal framework for Hindu sects. In accordance with the Constitution, we would defer to the legislature’s decision. Even though it’s crucial to note, we believe it’s proper for the government to outlaw any immoral or corrupt practices in Hindu organizations, if any are there at all. This would be a significant improvement for Hindu temple reform. It was necessary to enact the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Act in order to better manage, safeguard, and preserve India’s temples and their endowed properties as well as to carry out its stated purposes within constraints that do not interfere with the right to practice one’s religion guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.

REFERENCES

1. Need for Government Control over Religious and Charitable Endowment.- Sunder Singh Yadav, Assistant Professor, Government P.G. Law College, Alwar, Rajasthan. In Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education | Multidisciplinary Academic Research.
2. Ronojoy Sen (2007). Legalizing Religion: The Indian Supreme Court and Secularism, East-West centre Washington.
3. The National Foundation for Communal Harmony, Secularism and the Law, New Delhi, 2010.
4. B.R. Haran, HR & CE Act: A Fraud on the Constitution, bharatabharati.wordpress.com.
5. T.R. Ramesh, HR & CE Act
6. The Object of the HR & CE Act, www.malabardevaswom.kerala.gov.in.

---

This article is written by Bhagyashri Neware, doing LLM(2021- 2022) from Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad.