Govts May Come And Go But Writ Of Constitutional Courts Would Run Forever: Karnataka HC Quashes GO Re-Constituting Gokarna Temple Committee

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a Government order de-notifying the nominations of four persons who were members of the Overseeing Committee for the Gokarna Mahabaleshwar Temple, as approved by the Supreme Court.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Shree Ramachandrapura Math and its members, and set aside the order dated August 12, 2023 whereby the State government sought to remove the petitioners Veda Moorthy Dattatreya and three others from the Committee. The Committee was reconstituted including the present respondents Vidhanwan Ganapathi Shivaram Hirebhat and three others.

The court said “The action of the State being an attempt to overreach the order passed by the Apex Court, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the same, reserving liberty to the State to approach the Apex Court in terms of the preceding observations.”

It added, “Governments may come and Governments may go, the Writ of Constitutional Courts would run and run for all times to come.”

The State had issued a notification in 2008 invoking Section 23 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 bringing in certain temples mentioned in the Act under its purview. Aggrieved by the said notification, the petitioner/Math submitted a representation seeking deletion of Gokarna Mahabaleshwara Temple from the list of notified temples. The Math is attached to the Temple.

Subsequently, multiple writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the order dated 12-08-2008 wherein certain temples were de-notified. Though the order of such de-notification was quashed, the Court constituted a committee termed as Overseeing Committee. As the matter reached the Apex Court, it permitted the overseeing committee with minor modifications. After the Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections in the year 2023, the Government that was later formed issued an order on 22-05-2023 to remove all the nominations.

The petitioners argued that the pleasure term is sought to be invoked for removal of Members of the Committee. In the case at hand, the petitioners were nominated to be Members of the Committee pursuant to directions of the Apex Court. The order passed nominating the petitioners was clear that it was pursuant to directions of the Apex Court and to be in operation subject to further orders of the Apex Court. The change in Government could not have led to change in constitution of the Committee without the matter being placed before the Apex Court by the State.

The state government opposed the plea saying the power of the State to modify the Committee is not taken away by the directions of the Apex Court. State claimed it exercised its power of nominating its members which resulted in removal of the petitioners from the Committee. It also submitted that except the Chairman who was appointed by name, other persons were not appointed by respective names. Therefore, the State is empowered to change the composition.

The court referred to the Apex court order and then said “Elections to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly come about on 10-05-2023. This results in a change of guard of Government. Immediately thereafter, a Tippani emerged from the hands of the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 22-05-2023 that all nominations made by the previous Government should be cancelled and an order to that effect should be issued The communication/Tippani from the Hon'ble Chief Minister blows every nomination into the air. The effect is to the nominations made pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court as well.”

Court said since the constitution of the Committee in question is in terms of the Supreme Court's directions, thus if the State wanted to change the constitution of the Committee it ought to have approached the Apex Court prior to the impugned corrigendum. "Though the Apex Court has not indicated the names of the Committee, the Committee was constituted pursuant to the directions on 19-04-2021. If the constitution of the Committee had to be meddled with, on the ground that there is a change in the Government, the State Government ought to have sought permission as observed hereinabove,” it said.

Following which it held, “The power of removal of nominees unilaterally invoking the doctrine of pleasure would not be applicable to the fact situation, as the nominations come pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court, in which the Apex Court directed that it would be subject to further orders in those civil appeals pending before the Apex Court. Therefore, when the matter was completely seized by the Apex Court and the Committee was constituted pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court, it was not open to the State to change the nominations without it being brought to the notice of the Apex Court.”

It added “The power of the State may be available to change the nominations which would however be subject to judicial review. But, that would not clothe the State with the power, in the case at hand, as the case has emerged out of peculiar circumstances of the Committee being constituted pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court.”

Rejecting the contention of the state government that aggrieved persons are the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners had to approach the Apex Court, the court said “The situation pursuant to the impugned order is not brought about by the petitioners. It is by a stroke of a pen from the hands of the State. Therefore, the State ought to have sought approval from the hands of the Apex Court for re-constitution of the Committee.”

It added “The question is not with regard to the names of the Members of the Committee, but with regard to fairness of the State that it had to seek approval for re-constitution of a Committee constituted pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court, wherein it was clearly observed that it would be the Overseeing Committee subject to final orders to be made in those appeals pending before Apex Court.”

Before parting the court opined “The direction of the Apex Court is sought to be completely flouted on the score that there is a change of guard. Change in Government would not clothe, the Government with power to completely obliterate all the nominations made by the earlier Government, by a stroke of pen. This is sans countenance, as it is opposed to the principle of continuing governmental action / decision, a facet of constitutionalism, unless it is found that the acts done by the earlier regime to be contrary to statutory provisions.”

Appearance: Advocate P.N. Manmohan, and K Satish for the petitioners.

Advocate General K.Shashikiran Shetty, for respondents 1 to 4.

Advocate Arjun Rao, for R5 to 8.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 45

Case Title: SHREE RAMACHANDRAPURA MATH AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.18330 OF 2023 C/W WRIT PETITION No.19823 OF 2023