Pandharpur Temples Act Doesn't Impair Rights Of Devotees, Rather Meant To Save Them From "Rapacity Of Priestly Class": State To Bombay High Court
The Pandharpur Temples Act 1973 giving the Maharashtra Government control over the Vitthal and Rukmini temples in Pandharpur was enacted to relieve its multitude of secular devotees and pilgrims from the “rapacity of the priestly classes”, the State government has told the Bombay High Court. Following a committee report and consensus from both houses of legislature, the hereditary rights...
The Pandharpur Temples Act 1973 giving the Maharashtra Government control over the Vitthal and Rukmini temples in Pandharpur was enacted to relieve its multitude of secular devotees and pilgrims from the “rapacity of the priestly classes”, the State government has told the Bombay High Court.
Following a committee report and consensus from both houses of legislature, the hereditary rights of the priestly classes and other performing poojaris, appropriating the income from offerings by devotees and the rights of management were abolished through the Act, it added.
The affidavit was filed in response to Former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy’s PIL which sought for the Act to be struck down and a committee of priests, representatives of devotees and warkaris to be constituted for proper management of the temple.
He alleged violation of his and the Hindu population’s fundamental rights under Articles 13, 14, 25, 26, 31-A of the Constitution of India, through the permanent takeover of the administration by government officers “indefinitely.”
“The Act does not in any manner impair or curtail the rights of the devotees or pilgrims to profess, practice, or propagate religion recognized under Article 25 of the Constitution… the Act was legitimately introduced in the interest of the general public and intended to bring about changes in economic, financial, political or other secular activities as well as providing for social welfare and reform associated with religious practice. I say and submit that the Act is intra vires Article 25 of the Constitution,” the affidavit states.
Significantly, the Pandharpur Temples are open to persons of all faiths and are not religious denominations according to a commission of enquiry. The contention was upheld till the SC.
The affidavit filed by the State, highlighted the special circumstances under which the Pandharpur Temples Act was enacted.
Pandharpur is revered pilgrimage site in Solapur district of Maharashra. Every year thousands of devotees, from different castes, communities and different parts of the country visit the temples.
“The Pandharpur Temples are considered as public temples open to all persons abiding to different faiths and philosophies and have been found to not be religious denominational institutions as mentioned in the Commission of Enquiry.”
Talking about how the Act came into being, the affidavit states a Commission of Enquiry was set up by the State Government in 1968 after it received several complaints against the priests.
The commission recommended a legislation was required not just to address the grievances of devotees and the general public, but also of meeting the trends of modern thought and aspirations that a temple, as a religious institution, in addition to fulfilling spiritual needs, furthers the cause of the well- being and betterment of society in the field of social amelioration education etc.
After discussion in both houses the State enacted the Pandharpur Temples Act in 1973. The act was challenged by priests who lost the matter right up to the Supreme Court but in view of status quo orders repeatedly being passed the priests were still managing the affairs of the temples.
Finally in 2014 the pleas filed by the priestly classes were dismissed.
“The Pandharpur Temples, which occupied a unique position in the State, necessitating action on the part of the State to safeguard the interests of temples, its properties and endowment, and the multitude of devotees and pilgrims so as to relieve them from the rapacity of the priestly classes,” the affidavit said.