Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
IN THE MATTER OF
VERSUS
M.V. Soundararajan
Convener, Temples Protection Movement,
Shri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy temple
Chilkur , Moinabad, Ranga Reddy District,
Telangana Not a party/ Applicant
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and His
Companion Judges of the Supreme Court of India
The humble petition of the
applicant above named
in the above Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987
.
2
2. The petitioner states that he has been very active in fighting against
of the devotees for the past several decades. The petitioner has helped
Hundi, no VIP system, no offerings etc.) which has made it a unique temple and
several books such as ‘Legislation for Temple Destruction’. The petitioner has
various important matters. The Petitioner was instrumental in filing the written
Court case A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu vs State of Andhra Pradesh {(1996) 9 SCC
548} = AIR 1996 SC 1765 (noted in para 132 of the judgement) which paved the
way for constitution of the Pay Scales Committee and also the Welfare
Committee for the Archakas and eventually resulted in this Hon’ble Court
{(1997) 5 SCC 376} = AIR 1997 SC 3702. The petitioner has also assisted the
helped the Hon’ble High Court to formulate its views for protecting the sanctity
State of Andhra Pradesh dated 1.10.2015 more specifically Para 9 & Para 10
welfare measures for Archakas taken and low income temples have been
exempted from the provisions of the Act all of which are factually incorrect,
decided to place the true ground situation before this Hon’ble Court as
intervener and assist this Hon’ble Court in ensuring justice in this important case.
The Petitioner had tried to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Court the true facts
2015 which was tagged with the above Writ Petition (vide Order dated
25.2.2016 in W.P. (C) 476 of 2012 as follows :- “Tag SLP (C) Nos. 2015-2016/2015
with this Writ Petition and post for final hearing on 13 .07.2016 as first item.”)
2014 bringing on record the dismal nature of the state of the temple system in
Hon’ble Court for over two decades and also non-implementation of provisions
of the amendment Act 33 of 2007 which was enacted based on the orders of
this Hon’ble Court. The State of Andhra Pradesh in violation of Art 14 read with
Art 39A obstruction of justice had got the tagged SLP dismissed as infructuous
so that the true facts are not placed before this Hon’ble Court. The State of
Andhra Pradesh has for several decades used this approach of obstruction of
justice in violation of Art 14 read with Art 39A and with a view to bring all the
facts relating to the same in the background of the challenge to Sec 15 of the
bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Court the subsequent events as to how the
judgment dated 13th Sept 2012 made the following important observation
“In the case of Charan Lal Sahu v. UOI [(1990) 1 SCC 614 (667) (para
13), MUKHERJEE, C.J. made an unguarded statement, viz., that In
judging the Constitutional validity of the Act, the subsequent events,
namely, how the Act has worked out, have to be looked into. It can
be supported only on the test of direct and inevitable effect and,
therefore, needs to be explained in some subsequent decision.”
This Hon’ble Court in the past has allowed the Intervener Petitioner to raise
contention that has not been raised by the main Petitioners when there is issue
of Public Interest involved as seen in The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College ... vs
State Of Gujarat & Anr 1974 AIR 1389, 1975 SCR (1) 173.
which is detrimental to the very future of the temple system in the whole
country. Even though the State has been bifurcated, the petitioner feels that as
a devotee of all the temples in the State of Andhra Pradesh for whose sake the
petitioner had fought for the better part of his life the petitioner would come
devotee. The petitioner had also petitioned His Excellency the Hon’ble Governor
against giving assent to the Bill on 9th Sept 2014 under Art 200. The petitioner
intervener to enable this Hon’ble Court to give a decision in the interest of the
temple system at large and protect the rights of devotees who are entitled to
Pydikondala Manikyala Rao has underlined the need to find out an alternative
5
system with autonomous status for the maintenance and supervision of temples.
He also stated that there is a need to bring out the temples from government
and that only the autonomous bodies can prevent the encroachment of temple
the points brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court by a person of such
eminence as the former Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh through
(1) That the Archaka community in the State of Andhra Pradesh has
Act 1987 and the lack of initiative of the Executive machinery of the
(2) That there has been no serious attempt to constitute the Andhra
holder devotees.
(3) That the affairs of Hindu Temples should not be in the hands of the
the temple system in our country (4) That the continued Government
6. The petitioner also wanted to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Court
through intervener petition numbered I.A. No 2 of 2016 along with I.A.No. 84638
6
of 2017 permission to place additional facts and grounds in the tagged Special
the respondent state itself acknowledged that the contentions of the petitioner
herein with regard to the Amendment Act 8 of 2014 and that the temples
should be freed from the control of the Government. A true copy of the
7. Immediately, the respondent state decided get the tagged Special leave
weaken its case in this petition to which the Special Leave Petition was tagged
In view of the fact that Sec 15 along with other Sections of the Andhra Pradesh
challenged as being violative of Art 25 and Art 26 of the Constitution. This action
of the State Petitioner is clearly in violation of Art 14 read with Art 39-A
obstruction of justice
8. The Petitioner brought all the above facts to the notice of this Hon’ble
26510 of 2018 in REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 2714 of 2018 M.V.
Hon’ble Court dated 12th January 2018 dismissing the Special Leave Petition as
infructuous based on the submission of the State Counsel. This Hon’ble Court
vide order dated 6th March 2018 granted the permission sought. The Copy of
the Application and the order of this Hon’ble Court is enclosed as Annexure –
A3.
7
9. In view of the fact that though the permission to file the Review Petition
was granted. this Hon’ble Court did not review its order dated 12th January 2018
with the result the petitioner has been advised to file the present intervener
application in the interest of justice and to preserve the thousands of years old
Constitution. The petitioner was advised to file this intervener petition in the
main writ petition to bring all the below points which was articulated in the
earlier intervener petition in the tagged Special Leave Petition SLP (C) No 2015-
2016 of 2015 to the notice of this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice. The
petitioner feels that it is his fundamental duty as a citizen of India “to value and
Article 51A (f) of the Constitution of India. This article was explained by National
Composite culture
3.40.1 Clause (f) of article 51A requires us to value and preserve the
rich heritage of our composite culture. It follows that we may not
break each other’s places of worship, set fire to religious texts, or beat
up one another’s priests or obstruct those who exercise their
Fundamental Right under article 25 to profess, practice and
propagate religion. …..”
This Hon’ble Court which has in its emblem यतो धर्म स्ततो जयः (Yatho
Dharmastatho Jayaha) has the very important task of protecting the spirit of
Dharma. While protecting Dharma will protect (धर्ो रक्षतत रतक्षतः), failure to do so
who protects Dharma is protected by Dharma) This Hon’ble Court itself has
8
noted in the case CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 446-449 OF 2004 judgement "Jatro
adharma flowing from wrong decision in a Court of law, one fourth each is
attributed to the person committing the adharma, witness, the judges and the
ruler".) It is such acts of adharma in violation of Art 14 read with Art 39-A
obstruction of justice by the Andhra Pradesh State on 12th January 2018 that
has brought disrepute to our Justice system. The table in Annexure-A3 details
important Chronological events of how the State has always acted in violation
of Art 14 read with Art 39-A obstruction of justice. In view of the above guidance
in the sloka quoted by this Hon’ble Court that it is the fundamental duty of each
one of us to ensure Justice as per Dharma the petitioner who cannot be a silent
witness therefore craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to bring to the notice of this
justice as per Dharma in the larger interest of preserving the culture of temple
system of worship. This Hon’ble Court in Union Carbide Corporation Etc. ... vs
Union Of India Etc. Etc on 3 October, 1991 has held as follows:- “such Legal and
magnitude where the court is trusted with the moral responsibility of ensuring
justice”. This Petition popularly being called by the devotees as the Hindu
Temple Freedom petition is looked at as the last final attempt to save the temple
system from the clutches of the State machinery and the devotees are hoping
9
this Hon’ble Court can deliver justice in this very important case as per the
principles of Dharma.
rehabilitate party men in temple trust boards in large numbers has put the short
term interests of the Political Party in power ahead of the long term interests of
the temple system in the Country in drafting the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and
The leader of the opposition in the Legislative Council has also articulated the
view that The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
administration and undo the efforts made so far to free temples from political
interference.
9.2 THAT the draconian AP Endowments Act 30/87 on the basis of Justice
Religious leaders and overriding the concerns of the opposition for referring it
Act and by divine grace the Act was referred to a Select Committee exactly on
9.4.2007 !20 years hence correcting a historic blunder. The Select Committee
consisting of members from all Political parties functioned as pure devotees and
came up with a revolutionary report and the Act was amended through Act 33
of 2007 which was also appreciated by this Hon’ble Court. The Act mandated
10
Committee recommendation
rehabilitate party workers in temple trust boards in large numbers has embarked
upon this misguided amendment to an Act which had broad Political consensus
and has acted unilaterally without taking anybody into confidence. The Process
department dated 25th August 2014 and the views of the Parishad was not
sought which was the intention of the Select Committee in creating such a body.
Sec.17 Procedure for making appointments of trustees and their term:- (1) in
making the appointment of trustees under Section 15, the Government, the
Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as
the case may be shall have due regard to the religious denomination or any
such section thereof to which the institution belongs or the endowment is
made and the wishes of the founder.
11
The amendments to Sec 15 increasing the number of people in the trust boards
been done without due regard to the religious denomination in violation of the
population for better administration of all temples a right protected under Art
the concept of a trust board under Sec 15 for each individual temple this is a
body which oversees the administration of all temples and a decision such as
9.3 THAT the amendment to Sec 15(2) increasing the number of members
from three to five in trust boards of low income temples goes against the very
and Reasons and approved by the Select Committee this has been put in
jeopardy by this amendment. For small low-income temples of income less than
2 lakhs under Sec 15(2) the Select Committee had deliberately kept the number
of members in the trust board as a low count of three as already there is a ‘may’
clause for constitution of trust boards here. It was felt that the trust boards are a
burden to such small low-income temples and the move to now increase this
number to five members through the amendment Bill is not correct and will
cause strain on the meagre resources of such temples. The Bill also goes against
the commitment given to this Hon’ble Court and recorded as such in the 1997
judgement that low income temples will be exempted. In fact, the Dharmika
Parishad had resolved that such temples are to be managed by the Archakas
12
incentive for political pressure to constitute unnecessary trust boards for such
small low-income temples. Sec 15(2) itself was amended to read as follows by
“where the income of the institution is less than Rs 2 lakhs per annum,
the Deputy Commissioner concerned may constitute a Board of Trustees
consisting of three persons in respect of each such temple keeping in view
the traditions, sampradayams and wishes of the devotees”
Clearly the decision to increase the number of the trustees from three to five by
the Government has not been taken keeping in view the traditions,
sampradayams and wishes of the devotees as this was done bypassing the
amendment to Sec 15(2) read with Sec 163 is in violation of Art 25 and Art 26 of
the Constitution.
9.4 THAT through amendment of Sec 15 of the Act the concept of reserving
a place in the trust board of all temples to the ‘donor’ has been given a goby
proviso has been considerably diluted with an objective to insert more political
Pannala Pitti case protected the right of the members of the founder family to
not only have a place in the trust board but also to head it based on the
It is a well known fact that not all temples have recognized founders or members
of founder family and in their absence it is only the ‘donors’ of the respective
temples who are attached to the deity who ensure the maintenance by
donations. Thus the amendment to Sec 15 doing away with place for donors in
the trust board goes against the ratio of this Hon’ble Court’s judgement in
Pannalal Bansilal Pitti vs State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1996 SC 1023) for temples
of the Constitution.
9.5. THAT the approach to abolish duly constituted trust boards by a fresh
Government and filling the same with their own political party members was
negated by the High Courts in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka M.R. Subramanian
And Ors. vs State Of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 MLJ 151. The Courts have taken the
position that this cannot be done without following the statutory provisions
relating to removal of trustees in the Act. A new approach has been invented to
14
show this as a reason to abolish existing trust boards through new Sec 163. This
will set a dangerous precedent as every new Government will keep adding
members by amending Sec 15 in the future to achieve this same purpose and
consented by this Hon’ble Court then many State Governments will follow suit
and this will lead to excessive politicization of temple trust boards all over the
country. This Hon’ble Court has in the famous podu dikshitars case in Civil
Appeal No 10621 of 2013 has reiterated the law on taking over of temple
The State Government has tried to achieve through amendments Sec 15 and
Sec 163 i.e abolition of duly constituted trust boards for a fixed term in an
violation of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Appeal No 10621 of
2013. Further the takeover of the administration of the temples through Sec 15
and Sec 163 by the Government is in itself illegal as there is no time limit specified
10621 of 1023
15
Even if the management of a temple is taken over to remedy the evil, the
management must be handed over to the person concerned immediately
after the evil stands remedied. Continuation thereafter would tantamount
to usurpation of their proprietary rights or violation of the fundamental
rights guaranteed by the Constitution in favour of the persons deprived.
Therefore, taking over of the management in such circumstances must be
for a limited period. Thus, such expropriatory order requires to be
considered strictly as it infringes fundamental rights of the citizens and
would amount to divesting them of their legitimate rights to manage and
administer the temple for an indefinite period. We are of the view that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside for failure to prescribe the
duration for which it will be in force. Super-session of rights of
administration cannot be of a permanent enduring nature. Its life has to
be reasonably fixed so as to be co-terminus with the removal of the
consequences of maladministration. The reason is that the objective to
take over the management and administration is not the removal and
replacement of the existing administration but to rectify and stump out
the consequences of maladministration. Power to regulate does not mean
power to supersede the administration for indefinite period. Regulate is
defined as to direct; to direct by rule or restriction; to direct or manage
according to the certain standards, to restrain or restrict. The word
`regulate’ is difficult to define as having any precise meaning. It is a word
of broad import, having a broad meaning and may be very
comprehensive in scope. Thus, it may mean to control or to subject to
governing principles. Regulate has different set of meaning and must take
its colour from the context in which it is used having regard to the
purpose and object of the legislation. The word `regulate’ is elastic
enough to include issuance of directions etc. (Vide: K. Ramanathan v. State
of Tamil Nadu & Anr., AIR 1985 SC 660; and Balmer Lawrie & Company
Limited & Ors. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 345)
9.6 THAT the ratio of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the Chidambaram
temple case in Civil Appeal No 10620 of 2013 dated 6.1.2014 upholding the
specified period and only for the purpose of remedying the mismanagement
qualifies the earlier Pannalal Bansilal Pitti vs State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1996
SC 1023) judgement
Sri Adi Visheshwara Of Kashi Vishwanath Temple , Varnasi And Ors vs State
“The A.P. Act relates to abolition of hereditary right of the founders of the
religious institution or endowment or the Board of Trustees. That Act was
based upon the Report of Justice Kondiah Commission and has abolished
those rights. While the validity of the provisions was upheld, the
provisions were read down to indicate that all hereditary trustees need
not be painted with the same brush as having committed misconduct or
mismanaged the institution or endowment. In Pannalal’s case, this Court
examined the question in detail and held that if in an individual case a
hereditary trustee incurs any disqualification, an enquiry may be
conducted and one of the members of the family of the founder may be
appointed as a hereditary trustee along with non-hereditary trustees and
as a Chair-person of the Board of Trustees so that the institution would be
properly maintained and rituals and ceremonies conducted as per the
custom, usage and practice.”
down the entire Endowments Act as unconstitutional has also articulated the
17
trustees cannot be taken over and a committee formed under the guise of
Article 26(b) provides for a law with regard to regulating or restricting any
political and other secular activities and providing for social welfare etc.
But taking over and providing administration in respect of the
Government temples, despite their better management certainly would
be in violation of not only Article 14 but also under Articles 25 and 26 of
the constitution of India. The state Government would be well advised to
take over such temple only in the event of an adverse report after an
opportunity against that temple. Taking all temples and administering
them without any adverse order, as rightly argued would be hit by Article
26 of the Constitution of India. (Para 64)
(amendment) Act , 2011 illustrates the fact that this Hon’ble Court has
accepted the view of the Karnataka Division Bench that well administered
This Hon’ble Court has considered the above amendment to Sec 25 through
The takeover of well managed temples by the State and its continued
the temples are run only with materialistic motive (Ticket, VIP culture, Hundi
income etc.) and in a corrupt atmosphere like a museum/cinema hall and least
attention being paid to Spiritual matters and this has increased conversions.
The Madras High Court in the famous Shirur Mutt judgment (1952 I MLJ 557)
This Hon’ble Court in State Of Kerala, Etc vs Very Rev. Mother Provincial, 1970
AIR 2079, 1971 SCR (1) 734 laid down the law for Founders of educational
temples.
The next part of the right relates to the administration of such institutions.
Administration means 'management of the affairs' of the institution. This
management must be free of control so that the founders or their
nominees can mould the institution as they think fit, and in accordance
with their ideas of how the interests of the community in general and the
institution in particular will be best served. No part of this management
can be taken away and vested in another body without an encroachment
upon the guaranteed right.
The amendments to Sec 15 and addition of Sec 163 by which the State is
perpetuating its control over the Religious institutions by adding more members
into the trust board is in violation of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgement
in Civil Appeal 10620 of 2013 qualifying the ratio in earlier judgements and in
violation of Art 25 and Art 26. This Court has to not only strike down the
amendments as unconstitutional but also read down the law so that the proviso
in Sec 15
Provided also that where the Board of Trustees is not constituted for any
reason, the recognized founder or Member of founder’s family shall
discharge the functions of the Board of trustees till a new Board of
Trustees is constituted.
20
Member of founder’s family (same as hereditary trustee or his family member for
ancient temples as per Sec 17 Explanation-I) as the trust boards can only be for
a limited period of time and that too only when foul in management is proved
and further Government control through Sec 15 and Sec 29 cannot control for
9.7 THAT the Government issued G.O.Rt.No. 322 dated 25th Feb 2012
acknowledging the fact that proper persons are not being selected as trustees
in the trust boards on the basis of observations noted by this Hon’ble Court in
various orders
2. It is also informed that almost all temples deal with cash, jewellery and
antique idols etc.
5. All District Collectors are also requested to take further necessary action
in forming ‘Committees’ in all Districts for the above mentioned purpose.
The Government then issued G.O.Rt.No. 1297 dated 3rd Sept 2012 allowing
provisional appointments to trust boards citing the reason that the procedure as
per G.O.Rt.No. 322 is taking time for proper antecedent verification. The Hon’ble
noting that there is nothing in the Act allowing for provisional appointment of
G.O.Rt.No 414 dated 21st March 2013 keeping in abeyance G.O.Rt.No. 322 and
against the above background that the present amendment to Sec 15 and Sec
163 does not make sense as it goes about adding more people to the trust
trust boards for which there is as yet no solution with the Government. Further
all temples in one go. The amendments to Sec 15 and insertion of Sec 163 which
9.8 THAT the claim of the Government that it is bringing about amendments
to the Act for better administration of the temples is hollow as it is now over nine
years since the Act has been amended through Act 33 of 2007 and the scheme
22
G.O.Ms.No. 1395 dated 24-11-2010 in its visionary report dated 5.1.2011. The
The Committee in Sec 2.2.3 while tracing the history of the amendments
through Act 33 of 2007 has documented how the Government violated the
While the pay scales for all secular employees was religiously
implemented and periodically revised the Pay scales and revisions was not
implemented in the case of many Archakas and other Religious staff as
there was no money to pay their salaries after paying the salaries of the
secular employees and be within the 30% statutory limit. The fact that
many Archaka families became impoverished and temples virtually closed
down is clear from the following excerpt from the Statement of Objects
and Reasons of Act 33 of 2007..” Pg(18)
The first and foremost thing that needs to be done so that the amended
Act can be implemented at a fast pace is to implement the
recommendation of the Select Committee
for better administration of temple system has in fact done the very opposite by
abolishing the Parishad and brought about the amendments bypassing the
Dharmika Parishad shows that the amendments have nothing to do with better
boards with political members. The Dharmika Parishad had made several
temples so as to allow them to manage the same without additional staff such
objective with which the Act was amended. The Hon’ble High Court in its Order
dated 3.10.2012 in WP 22074 of 2012 has given guidelines on how the income
is to be calculated and also taking into account the decisions of the Government
The amendments to the Act pours water on all the above efforts and have to be
In view of the ratio of the judgement of this Hon’ble Court in Rustom Cavasjee
Cooper vs Union Of India 1970 AIR 564, 1970 SCR (3) 530 that not only the
object of a law but its effect on the fundamental rights is to be considered for
the constitutionality
rights, the object and the form of the State action alone need be
considered, and effect of the laws on fundamental rights of the individuals
in general will be Ignored cannot be accepted as correct.
Employees dated 5.1.2011 that the Government is not implementing the orders
of the Supreme Court which formed the basis for amendment Act 33 of 2007
with the result the entire temple system is a state of decay. The Government has
taken no steps to exempt low income temples from the provisions of the Act as
being to constitute the Dharmika Parishad and transferring its powers under the
as to continue its domination on the temples furthering the cause of the political
the religion by destroying the culture and heritage of temple system which is an
integral part of religion. The Act in its effect further violates the right to preserve
the culture, tradition and heritage of temple worshipers protected under Art
29(1). The Act in its effect is in violation of Art 21 in its expanded form articulated
by this Hon’ble Court in Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors
It is true that life in its expanded horizons today includes all that give
meaning to a man's life including his tradition, culture and heritage and
protection of that heritage in its full measure would certainly come within
the encompass of an expanded concept of Article 21 of the Constitution
The Act in its effect is in violation of Art 14 and Art 15(1) as only temples
belonging to the Hindu Religion are being discriminated against and subject
26
Art 19(1)(g) as it has become impossible for Archakas and other temple workers
by the Government in the name of regulation. The Act in its effect is in violation
of Art 27 as the tax money paid by the Hindu devotees is being used to destroy
their culture, tradition and heritage and thus furthering the cause of other
of the temple properties and putting the same to use for its political ends
as follows :-
What exactly is Public Interest Here? The Agamas have defined this very
clearly. The following are extracts from the book “The Agama
Encyclopedia” by Prof S.K Ramachandra Rao Vol 3
“Because the safety, security, wealth and welfare of the country depends
upon regular worship ( six times, three or two times a day) conducted in
the temple, the ruler of the land or the people must see that the worship
is not interrupted due to the penury of the priest. It is prescribed therefore
that endowments of lands are made upon the priest free of taxes so that
his family may live in comfort”. (Pg 41-42)
The Act in effect by continuing to keep the Archaka families in a state of penury
and not ensuring continuity of rituals is against public interest and in violation
of Art 21 by putting in jeopardy the safety, security, wealth and welfare of the
State and also in violation of Art 38(1) and Art 51A(f) directive principles. The
3.40.1 Clause (f) of article 51A requires us to value and preserve the rich
heritage of our composite culture. It follows that we may not break each
other’s places of worship, set fire to religious texts, or beat up one
27
The Act in effect in the name of regulation and taking over of several low income
August 1947 by not ensuring continuous rituals and virtually shutting them
to Act 33 of 2007
that post or allowing him to do the service to preserve the custom and
usage taking into consideration suitably in rendering services apart from
the qualification required. The Government has accepted the
recommendations subject to all other things being equal in competitive
requirement. However the main concern should be to preserve the
customs and usage with a view to protect the sanctity of the religious
rituals. The Government itself has been taking care to preserve the sanctity
of the religious rituals. Nothing more needs to be said in this behalf. It is
accordingly approved.
In order to remedy the situation the Government intends to amend the
Act in order to revive the village temple system, preserve the sanctity of
traditional rituals, customs and usage and provide livelihood to the
Archaka families, Amendments to Sections 34 and 144 are intended to
achieve these objectives. All political parties had unanimously accepted
such amendments in a meeting held on 4-10-2004.
and further converting higher income temples into tourist places, cinema halls
political trust boards is in violation of Sec 3 read with Sec 7 of The Places of
Sec 7. Act to override other enactments :- The provisions of this Act shall
have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith containted
in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having
effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
amended through Act 8 of 2014 in effect is in violation of Art 13(2), Art 14, Art
15(1), Art 19(1)(g), Art 21, Art 25, Art 26, Art 27 and Art 31A(1)(b) , Art 38(1) and
29
Art 51A(f) and also in violation of Sec 3 read with Sec 7 of The Places of Worship
(Special Provisions Act, 1991) and needs to be struck down by this Hon’ble Court.
9.9 In many of the temples there are founder trustees/hereditary trustee who
are heading the trust board. The rights of the founder trustee are generically
different from that of a trustee appointed by the Government under Section 15.
no independent right of other than his appointment and cannot enter upon or
hereditary trustee has a right arising out of the creation of the temple through
the temple both in the arena of secular as well as religious administration. In that
of the Constitution and not to Act 30/87. Consequently the action of the
unconstitutional.
9.10 The Petitioner states that he had filed a similar application to intervene
before the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court through W.P.M.P. No. 40821 of
2014 in W.P.No. 29264 of 2014. The Hon’ble High Court by its order held that
the amendments are void and allowed the said W.P. No. 29264 of 2014.
Consequently the Hon'ble High Court did not pass any order in W.P.M.P. 40821
9.11 In the intervener application filed before the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh
High Court the Petitioner had also articulated the fact about the pending Writ
The Act in effect has also been challenged in the Supreme Court in the
pending WP 476 of 2012 in Swamy Dayananda Saraswathi and Others vs
State of Tamil Nadu, State of AP and State of Pondicherry where several
sections including Sec 15 has been challenged and a notice has been
served to the Government. The Government without replying to the said
notice has gone ahead with this amendment.
9.12 The Petitioner also brings to the notice of this Hon’ble Court the Book
Rama Jois former Chief Justice of Panjab and Haryana High Court based on an
Book after a thorough study will enable this Hon’ble Court to recognize the
relief in this petition where petitioners are seeking a new legal and
and commercialization, which may lead to destroying the purpose for which the
temples have been established. The Book whose coverpage is inspired by the
supreme sacrifice of Shri Bheemasena Chary has the following in its preface. “It
31
is important that the warning given by Shri Nani Palkhivala to the Supreme
Court continues to ring in our ears “Under the pretext of social reform the State
cannot reform a religion out of existence”. The sound of the bell of the Alampur
temple sacrificed his life should also continue to ring in ourears for ages to
come”. The supreme sacrifice of the Archaka Shri Bheemasena Chary triggered
amendments to the Act through a Select Committee of the Legislature and till
has acknowledged the undue delay in implementing the orders of this Hon’ble
Court for over two decades and also implementation of the provisions of the
amended Act 33 of 2007 of over a decade which has made traditional archaka
amendment Act 33 of 2007. The relevant portion of the said G.O. is given below:
11. The petitioner respectfully submits that it is a sad reflection on the way the
that even to date the final notification of the above Rules has not been issued
even though over 6 months have elapsed after the preliminary notification
12. The petitioner states that the Andhra Pradesh Government through
G.O.Ms.No 183 Revenue (Endowments. I) Department dated 25th May 2017 has
State throwing them into financial doldrums. The G.O. inter-alia states:
13. The petitioner states that the Andhra Pradesh Government through its
Government Order G.O. Rt. No. 743 Revenue (Endowments. II) Department
dated 18th July 2017 has acknowledged the fact that most of the trustees
appointed under the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act, 1987 are political
culture. The relevant portion of the said G.O. is extracted and given below:
A true copy of the said Government Order G.O. Rt. No. 743 Revenue
Annexure-A6.
14. The petitioner states that the Andhra Pradesh Government has rightly
dated 25th May 2017 that it does not have the power to tax the devotees of the
Court in the Chidambaram temple case in Civil Appeal No 10620 of 2013 dated
15. The petitioner further respectfully submits that the continuous control
Constitutional Bench of this Hon’ble Court in S.D. G. Pandara Sannati vs. State of
Madras (1965 AIR 1683) which requires that a case must be made out for the
16. As per the latest 9 Judge Constitution Bench judgement of this Hon’ble
Court in Justice K.S. Puttasamy and others vs Union of India the State
and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion vide Article
35
of Temple Employees has in its report after relying on the past judgements of
this Hon’ble Court and the Madras High Court Division Bench states that the
(1) The levy can be justified as intra vires the State Legislature, only
if it falls within the ambit of Entry 47 read with Entry 28 in List III of
VIIth Schedule of the Constitution.
(2) There should be a quid pro quo basis to justify the levy as a fee.
The co-relation between the fee levied and the services rendered
should appear ex facie the legislative provision. The co-relation
must exist both in the purpose of the levy and the extent of the levy,
that is, the co-relation should be between the actual levy and the
expense incurred by the Government for rendering the services for
which the levy is made.
18. The petitioner is advised to state that given the current situation it is quite
judgement and SDG Pandara Sannati Case read with the above tests more
specifically test no (5) the levy being collected from Hindu devotees towards
Government to levy as held by this Hon’ble Court in the Shirur Mutt case
19. The petitioner is further advised to state that if the contribution payable
under section 76 of the Act is a "fee", it may come under entry 47 of the
Concurrent List which deals with " fees" in respect of any of the matters included
in that list. On the other hand, if it is a tax, as this particular tax has not been
provided for in any specific entry in any of the three lists, it could come only
under entry 97 of List I or article 248(1) of the Constitution and in either view the
Union Legislature alone would be competent to legislate upon it. Thus, clearly
in absence of any such law under Art 248(1) enacted by the Parliament, tax is
illegally being levied by the State Government on Hindu Devotees in the name
of fee. The petitioner submits that the Hindu devotees are unconstitutionally
above situation is not specific only to the State of Andhra Pradesh but a wide
20. The petitioner respectfully submits that the entire scheme of distribution
E.S. Venkataramiah and P.M. Bakshi Indian Fedralism (1992) Pg 85 Para 7.13]
“Experience has shown, both in India and elsewhere, that there are
certain matters which cannot be allocated exclusively either to a
central or to a Provincial legislature and for which, though it is often
desirable that provincial legislation should make provision, it is
equally necessary that the central legislature should also have a
legislative jurisdiction enable it, in some cases to secure uniformity
in the main principles of law throughout the country, in others, to
guide and encourage provincial effort and in others, again, to
provide remedies for mischief arising in the provincial sphere, but
extending, or liable to extend beyond the boundaries of a single
province”.
21. The petitioner states that when the Union Government intervened, and
argued forcefully that the levy on Hindu Religious Institutions is only a fee during
the arguments in the Shirur Mutt case through the Office of the Attorney
monitor how the State Governments are enforcing the provisions of the Act
Country. On the one hand due to gross miss-management, due income has not
been realized from the properties of the Hindu temples and endowments and
this is a very serious blow to the fundamental right to practice and propagate
imagination, claim that the contributions and donations received by the temples
PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this
(I) permit petitioner to intervene in in the above writ petition and also
permit him to address the grounds raised in the above application and
(II) pass such further order or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem
Dated
(V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN)