Subramanian Swamy Challenges Pandharpur Temples Act In Bombay High Court, Says Govt Can't Permanently Takeover Hindu Temples

Former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy has approached the Bombay High Court in a PIL challenging the Pandharpur Temples Act, 1973, which empowers the Maharashtra government to take over the administration of the temples at Pandharpur.

Swamy has argued that the power to “permanently” takeover the administration and control of religious and non-religious activities of the temples and vest the same in the officers of the government “indefinitely” on mere allegations of mismanagement violates his fundamental rights and those of “Hindu population” under Articles 13, 14, 25, 26, 31-A of the Constitution of India.

He therefore seeks 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.

The petition, which has been filed by Swamy with Jagdish Shetty, is listed for hearing on February 21, 2023.

The Pandharpur Temples Act was enacted in 1973 to abolish all hereditary rights, privileges of ministrants and priestly classes functioning in the temples of Vitthal and Rukmini at Pandharpur and authorised the State to acquire those rights and privileges.

Section 21 of the Act postulates that the Committee under the Act shall have perpetual succession and would be established by the State Government. The provision is violative of Article 31- A, Swamy has said.

Until 2014, the religious administration of the temples' activities was entirely with the previous priests, and it was only after 2014 that the government took forcible control over the temples, the plea states.

According to Swamy, the law is settled by the various High Court and  Supreme Court decisions that the administration of religious institution being a secular activity, the right to administer and maintain them cannot be taken away completely. It can be taken over only for a limited period to “secure the proper from the evil of mismanagement of the property,” the plea argues, adding that after the "evil" is remedied, the administration should be handed back.

Swamy has stated that takeover has resulted in “various class of Priests and other religious heads” being put to “extreme difficulties ... and are deprived of the customary rights and Privileges which continued from unfathomable ages.”

Supreme Court has also emphasised that Hindu religious institutions are liable only to be regulated by the government, but they are not liable to be controlled so as to oust the management by such devotees or priests altogether, Swamy has argued.

The plea further states that Temples in Maharashtra are governed by the Bombay Trusts Act. However, the temples of Vitthal and Rukmini have been singled out by this Act, therefore violative of Article 14.

It adds that the role of a priest is a religious matter and any interference is violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, read with freedom of faith and belief to worship under the Preamble.

“The Government of Maharashtra through this statute has tried to create an extensive bureaucratic mechanism to maintain deep and pervasive control over such temples' affairs and wealth.… Further, these State appointed officers have been allowed to perform various functions, carry out temple repairs, receive donations and even oversee the performance nitya puja which are prima facie non-secular activities,” the plea states.