Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Executive Officers In Hindu Temples By HR&CE Commissioner

Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Indic Collective Trust and its President TR Ramesh challenging the appointment of executive officers to Hindu temples by the HR & CE Commissioner.

The Bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the executive officers were not appointed pursuant to malpractice, maladministration, mismanagement or for any other reason given in Rule 3 of Conditions for Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015.

According to the court, the above rule has no application in the peculiar circumstances of the case and observed that Executive officers were appointed in the absence of nomination of trustees for 10-12 years.

The court also added that the mandate in Rule 3 about HR& CE Commissioner appointing Executive Officers for a period not exceeding five years won't be applicable either. The court also went on to note that the writ petition is also affected by the doctrine of laches.

The petitioner in person, T. R Ramesh, submitted that the orders of HR & CE Commissioner appointing executive officers in non-hereditary temples without the authority of law and for time periods exceeding 5 years was not permissible.

The appointment orders without disclosing the reasons and continuation of executive officers beyond 5 years are in direct violation of the Supreme Court judgment in Dr Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (2014) 5 SCC 175 and SDG Pandara Sannati Case (1965), he argued. The apex court held in the said cases that the HR& CE Commissioner should make out a case for such appointments. According to the judgment, if the temple administration is bad, there is a regulatory power to supersede the functions of ordinary administration so as to cure the mismanagement and the temple will be notified for a short period:

"...Consequently, the power to supersede the functions of a `religious denomination` is to be read as regulatory for a certain purpose and for a limited duration, and not an authority to virtually abrogate the rights of administration conferred on it", the cited judgment states.

Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is clear that the judgment does not permit the appointment of executive officers for indefinite periods. As a result, the petitioner prayed for the court's interference via an interim direction so that HR & CE produces all orders of appointments in the 628 temples and Executive Officers are restrained from taking major decisions with regards to such temples.

The court referred to Section 43 A and Section 45 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Hereinafter 'Act') which talks about the circumstances under which the Commissioner can exercise the powers for appointing executive officers.

The petitioner averred that appointments were made under the Act before Conditions For Appointments of Executive Officers' Rules, 2015 were framed and notified. According to the petitioner, the secondary legislation, i.e., Rules framed in 2015 under Sections 43A and 45 cannot bestow legality to executive officers appointed prior to the notification of conditions for appointments. Moreover, none of the orders of appointment before 2015 specified a period of operation for such appointments. He also alleged that all of these executive officers have been in office for over 5 years and they cannot legally continue. He also accused the executive officers of wide mismanagement of temple properties for decades.

The petitioner also added that executive officers have been appointed by HR & CE Commissioner in over 600 temples in the absence of appointment/ nomination of trustees. According to the petitioner, it is not in dispute that trustees have not been appointed in most of the non-hereditary temples.

TR Ramesh also mentioned that the state government has deliberately opted out from appointing trustees for 11 years, in contravention of Sections 47 and 49 of the Act. Instead, 628 executive officers and other personnel were appointed as 'fit persons' for the administration of 20,000 temples. The petitioner termed the above act as a blatant violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

He also informed the court that the replies to the RTI applications filed by him revealed that the appointments of executive officers in most temples were made without any legally sustainable order, and in many cases, such orders were completely absent.

He also relied on Article 31-A (1) (b) which says that a law for taking over the management of a property for the public good or better management will be hit by Articles 14 and 19 unless such takeover is for a limited period.

The court observed that a coordinate bench of the High Court is seized of the matter pertaining to the appointment of trustees in temples immediately. The court, while addressing a similar issue, had remarked that the appointment of trustees will be at two levels: i) temples with less than 10 Lakhs earning, ii) temples with more than 10 lakhs earning.

"The process for appointment of trustees have already begun and it is nearing completion. In such a scenario, we don't find any reason to entertain this petition after the lapse of 10-12 years", the court noted at the outset.

Citing Sections 43A and 45, the court said they give the Commissioner power to make appointments of Executive Officers. However, the HR & CE Commissioner also has the power to suspend/ dismiss the Executive Officers under the Act.

In the present case, appointments were de hors the rules/ provisions of the Act, the court clarified. Referring to Rule 3 of the 2015 Rules, the court added that it has no application in the case at hand since Executive Officers were appointed not on grounds of mismanagement but in the absence of nomination of trustees.

The court also opined that Subramanianswamy's judgment which was in reference to the appointment of Executive Officers in temples afflicted by mismanagement is not relevant for the case at hand.

Hence, stating that the petitioner couldn't justify or make out the grounds for the writ petition and citing the doctrine of laches since trustees were absent in non-hereditary temples for many years, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Indic Collective Trust & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

Case No: WP/3371/2022 (PIL) 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 74

Click Here To Read/ Download Order