Hindu Endowment Acts – Legal?

Article Written By: Amit Abhyankar

Recently the Karnataka High Court struck down the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act, 1997. And now I believe is high time we discuss the legality of such Hindu Endowment Acts.

Through these Endowment Acts, the Government feigns to bring in various regulatory measures over management & administration of Hindu Religious Institutions under the pretext that vast funds available to such religious institutions are ill-managed and there is not uniform organisational framework for temples.

The first question is can government step in to regulate the functioning of any religious institution? Haven’t we been guaranteed freedom of religion under Articles 25-28 of the Indian Constitution? Now According to Article 26,

Every religious group or denomination has right to-

(i) to establish & maintain institutions for religious & charitable purposes;

(ii)to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

(iii)to own & acquire movable & immovable property and

(iv)to administer such property in accordance with law.

Thus from Clause (ii) & (iv), we may deduce that the religious institution enjoys full autonomy in matters of ‘religion’ at the same time the property to be managed by the institution or trust must be in accordance with law. In case of Ratilal v. State of Bombay (1954), the Apex Court has laid down that regulation by the State cannot interfere with things which are essentially religious. That also implies that State can intervene in matters which are not essentially religious. Also it may interfere if any religious practice offends against public health or morality. So State may, if it feels, intervene in & regulate administrative & financial aspects of the institution. But at the same time, it may be noted that discriminating /managing /reforming /patronising any religion is totally outside the parameters of government jurisdiction.

Hence the real issues that come out are “To what extent can the government interference be labelled as ‘legal’?” and “Isn’t such governmental control over only Hindu religious institutions (and not any other religious institutions like Muslim/Christian) grossly discriminatory?”

Some facts to start with…in State of Bihar itself, government control over the temples through its endowment department, has resulted, according to Kishor Kunal, Religious Trust Administrator, in loss of temple properties worth Rs. 2000 crore. The picture isn’t different in other States. Thus the governmental control does not necessarily translate into better protection and transparent & efficient management. On the contrary, it’s resulting into temples/maths losing their properties. It cannot be denied that matters relating to spirituality & religion require the guidance of qualified religious persons. And what competence & specialisation that government possesses for controlling every aspect of Hindu cultural centres? Government mismanagement resulting in deliberate & irreversible liquidation of endowment lands clearly results in denying the temple/math/any other religious institution its vital functions.

In strict legal sense Government might be able to justify its interference in management of temple trusts etc for healthier utilisation of large funds they possess. But why target only Hindus? What about the Muslim/Christian religious institutions? In spite of their vast funds, properties and endowments in addition to the immense flow of foreign funds the Waqf Board of Muslims and the management of Christian religious institutions enjoy full freedom, self governance and autonomy. Now this discrimination, I believe, is simply unjustifiable- socially and also legally. This certainly can be labelled as gross misuse or abuse of State powers. The Secular Constitution certainly does not permit such discrimination on basis of religion. Why not allow an autonomous Hindu board to govern temples under the guidance of religious leaders, just as in other religious formations? Thus on the one hand the Indian Govt. continues to subsidise the “Hajj” pilgrimage of the Muslims to the tune of Rs. 200 crores annually, provides Rs. 1000 crores per year for Imams salaries, reservations are proposed on the basis of minority status, but on the other hand despoils the Hindu religious centres through State Control. This is not any positive discrimination in favour of any minority that Constitution allows, but a “negative reverse discrimination” against the India’s majority community.

If the government is really concerned about the mismanagement of funds in Hindu religious institutions, the Allahabad High Court has recently suggested a solution. It has directed the Central government to prepare a scheme for constituting a Board of the representatives of Hindu religious organizations on the pattern of the UP Muslim Waqf Board. A socially conscious and dedicated Board, working as an NGO, utilizing temple resources and donations, could among other things develop a vast network of educational institutions, medical facilities and orphanages for the benefit of the community, as is done by missionaries.

If lack of uniform organisational framework for temples is the matter of concern, it may be suggested that convening an assembly of representatives of shrines, temples, Hindu community and religious leaders from Dharma Sansad, Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, etc. for clearly defining the new legal and organizational framework ensuring community governance of temples and other religious places would be a welcome step. This body’s jurisdiction could also include training priests and constructing a religious based curriculum. Such an approach among other things should make the proposed Board completely autonomous and thereby responsible and accountable for the entire administration, including planning, executing, auditing, guiding, investigating and taking corrective steps as and when needed.

Thus, it should the priority of the Central Government to find the current status of temples, mutts and trusts under the endowment Trust; to help protect their religious assets; and to ensure smooth transition to an autonomous Hindu Board. Easier said than done especially in a country where political dictionary declares ‘Hindu bashing’ and ‘secularism’ as synonyms. The Apex Court of the country still remains the hope though. Ultimately, litigation and hopefully, future legislation will determine the proper and just sphere of interest of the government in the nation’s extensive religious affairs.

 

(Special Thanks to Adv. Mamta Singh as this article was written as a response to her vigilant query on legality of Endowment Acts.)