The Madras High Court Bench here has upheld the validity of an amendment to Section 47 (3) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE) Act in 2006 decreasing the tenure of non-hereditary trustees of various temples from three years to one year.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by E. Manickam, managing trustee of Puttu Uthsava Vagaiara Kattalai, an association of Vysya community members, challenging the 2006 amendment, Justice K.K. Sasidharan held that no individual could claim a vested right to continue in office indefinitely.
“The petitioner has no case that the government has no powers to make such an amendment. When the appointment is to a public office and the very appointment flows from a particular provision, it is open to the Legislature to prescribe the conditions regarding eligibility as well as tenure of office,” the Judge said.
The intention behind the amendment was to provide opportunity to senior citizens, women and other aspirants with aptitude, dedication and competence to occupy the office of temple trustee.
“The said object could be achieved, only in case the present period is reduced to a lesser term. It will not be possible to induct senior citizens, members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other aspirants into the Board of Management of a temple till the present tenure is completed.
“This has only made the Legislature to reduce the period so as to enable the government to achieve the object of giving accommodation to all these categories as trustees.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the amendment has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved,” the Judge added. Pointing out that the present writ petition was filed in 2008, the Judge said that pending adjudication of the present case, the government had brought yet another amendment to Section 47 (3) in 2010 and increased the tenure of non-hereditary trustees from one to two years.
“In fact, there is no challenge to Section 47 (3) as it exists today. In any case, it cannot be said that the amendment was a colourable exercise of power,” the Judge said and added that the petitioner had anyway completed his three year tenure as early as October 3, 2010, due to interim orders passed by the court at the time of admission of the present writ petition in 2008.
