State Should Leave Religious Institutions To Solve Their Problems On Their Own: Karnataka High Court Removes Administrator For Mutt
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a Government Order which appointed an Administrator to run the affairs of Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Bruhan Mutt at Chitradurga. The administrator was appointed as the pontiff- Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru was arrested in September 2022 following cases registered against him under the POCSO Act.A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit observed...
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a Government Order which appointed an Administrator to run the affairs of Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Bruhan Mutt at Chitradurga. The administrator was appointed as the pontiff- Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru was arrested in September 2022 following cases registered against him under the POCSO Act.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit observed that interference of the State in Religious Institutions, goes against its professed secular credentials.
"In secularism, State neutrality qua religion is inherent and this requires the governance to maintain a distance from the affairs of religious institutions of all faiths, equally and further to respect their autonomy...The State and its functionaries should realise that by their very nature they can not be a can not, be panacea to all the evils in society. As of necessity, it should leave religious institutions to solve their problems on their own by appropriate measures, such as community mediation/conciliation or judicial process, of course subject to all just exceptions,” it said.
The bench thus allowed the petitions filed by devotees of the Mutt but, permitted the Administrator to continue for 6 weeks. It said,
“In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Administrator shall continue for a short period of six weeks only with no power to take any major decision that would have repercussions beyond the said period and that he shall manage only the day to day affairs.”
The Bench clarified that the interim arrangement has been made so that the devotees and prominent members of the community concerned may devise an appropriate plan of action for due administration and management of the affairs of Mutt and the educational institutions run under its aegis.
The petitioners had contended that law does not prohibit a Pontiff in detention from exercising administration through his delegates and accordingly, he is continuing administration and management through Sri Basavaprabhu Swamiji. Further, a retired District Judge was also appointed to look after the affairs of the management. That being the position, it was contended that the government has neither competence nor justification to appoint the Administrator of its choice sans an opportunity of hearing.
It was further contended that Petitioners have religious freedoms guaranteed under Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution; several other rights are attached to Pontiffhood and they could not have been cut short in the absence of statutory authorization.
The State government opposed the plea saying it has parens patriae jurisdiction and there is no violation of any Fundamental Rights of petitioners as alleged in the petitions.
Findings:
At the outset, the bench noted that in India, the history of control of Religious Institutions of any faith by the State is traceable to the Colonial era and its mindset, and even after independence and enactment of the Constitution, this mindset continues in one or the other forms of inheritance. Even to this day, there has been a continued tendency in ‘powers that be’ to exclusively control (not merely regulate) Hindu Religious Institutions, without authority of law and at times, absolutely sans justification.
Noting that Article 25 (of the Constitution of India) guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice & propagate religion, the provisions of Article 26 complementarity protect such right of every religious denomination, the bench said
“A religious denomination or organisation enjoys almost a complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites & ceremonies constitute essential religious practice according to the tenets of religion concerned and that the State has no authority to meddle with such decisions...A welfare State constitutionally ordained cannot assume that civil society lacks virtues and that its members, such as devotees of Mutts and temples will be invariably incapable of addressing exigencies of the kind, on their own and therefore, the government should rush in to set the things right.”
It said “Mutts and temples are not of nascent origin; they have been there since a millennia & more. Inevitable are highs & lows as is with the turning of the wheel of time. From this, no institution be it governmental or religious is immune. With the benefit of experience, precedents and practices have been evolved through the ages so as to provide the modes and method of dissolving the difficulties in the matter of administration, as is the case with Mutt in question.”
It added “If civil society fails in its endeavours, let it fail. However, that cannot justify interference of the Government in the affairs of Mutt in the absence of legislative authorization. The doctrine of parents partirae, is not invocable in cases like this.”
Court also said no law or ruling was cited by the opponents to support the contention that the Pontiffhood stands suspended on arrest and detention. It agreed that ordinarily detention per se does not strip off the status of Pontiff of a Mutt nor keeps all his rights in suspended animation. However, it added that the challenge is confined to the appointment of Administrator and whether such a Pontiff in custody can perform religious rites & ceremonies of the Mutt in question, is not much debated.
It said “The fact that the government has allotted some land to the Mutt and handed some funds, per se , would not justify its interference, especially when the terms & conditions subject to which that has been done, do not authorizing action of the kind.”
Case Title: Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Vidhya Peetha & ANR And The Chief Secretary & others.
Case No: WP No. 25316/2022 c/w WP No.25318/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
Date of Order: 22-05-2023
Appearance: Senior Advocate Jayakumar S Patil a/w Advocate Vishwanath H M for petitioners.
Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi a/w AGA R Srinivasa Gowda FOR R1 TO R5 & R7.
Senior Advocate Gangadhar Gurumath a/w Advocate H Sunil Kumar for R6.
Advocate B A Chandrashekar for intervener.