The High Court of Karnataka has declared both the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Acts of 2011 and 2012 as “discriminatory and violative of constitutional rights”, which is of far-reaching consequences.
The court said that both the 2011 and 2012 enactments were nothing but “re-introduction with cosmetic changes” the provisions contained in the original Karnataka Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, which the High Court had declared in 2006 “unconstitutional and discriminative”. Over 34,000 temples are controlled under this Act.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anand Byrareddy and Justice S. Sujatha of the High Court’s Dharwad Bench struck down the Acts in their entirety in its the verdict on November 17 in the case between Mahaganapathi Shankara Devasthana, Sirsi and others vs. State of Karnataka.
On non-inclusion of mutts
The Bench said that the “non-inclusion of mutts and temples controlled by the mutts” in the amended Acts were illegal as it was one of the reasons why the 1997 Act was set aside by the High Court in 2006.
The Bench also noticed that the State government had stated before the Supreme Court, where the appeal against the 2006 verdict is pending for adjudication, that mutts would be brought under the Act. However, the State has “religiously ensured that the same [mutts] are kept out of the purview of the Act,” the Bench observed.
Also, exclusion of Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs from the definition of “Hindus” in the 2011 and 12 Acts was violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as the 1997 Act was declared illegal for this reason as well, the Bench said.
No changes were made in the amended Acts, the Bench said, to ensure that persons with political affiliations were not appointed to the posts of the chairman of the advisory committees to “avoid politics in mutts” as was pointed even in the 2006 verdict.
Political interference
Though the amended Acts exclude office-bearers of political parties from appointment to these posts, the Bench said, “To introduce and thrust a political bigwig on a cash-rich and influential religious institution could be achieved with ease by calling upon him to resign as an office-bearer, temporarily.”
Besides, the Bench said that even the amended Acts allowed appointment of members to the managing committee of religious institutions based on the “prevailing usage and practices of the particular institution” and hence the membership could be denied to a member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe based on the practices. This, the Bench said, amounts to discrimination.
The original law enacted in 1997 was set aside by the High Court in 2006
