Temples Managed By Math Cannot Be Regulated Under Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments Act: High Court

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty observed,

"The 1997 Act does not apply to the provisions of the Maths. There is a conscious omission on the part of the Legislature in keeping the Maths out of the purview of the Act, which is also evident from the statement of objects and reasons of Karnataka Act No.27 of 2011 namely the Amendment Act."

The observation was made while disposing of a public interest litigation filed by devotees of Sri.Ramachandrapura Math, alleging abuse of powers by seer Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamiji and seeking investigation into affairs of the Math regarding tax evasion and other offences under the Tax legislations. The petitioners had also sought appointment of a committee to suggest the successor of the Peetadhipathi of the Ramachandrapura Math and a direction to the government to frame a scheme to regulate all the mutts in the State.

The bench noted that the 1997 Act was amended by the State government in 2011 and the legislative intention to exclude the Maths is manifest from the statement of objects and reasons of the Amendment Act.

"The 1997 Act does not apply to the provisions of the Maths. There is a conscious omission on the part of the Legislature in keeping the Maths out of the purview of the Act."

The bench also refused to frame a scheme for administration of the Maths, which are headed and managed by mathadipathis. It opined,

"The hallmark of our Constitution is to build a society to attain justice and erase inequities flowing from religion, gender, caste and privileges. In this background, Articles 25 to 30 are incorporated in the Constitution. Article 25(1) of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience, the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion subject to public order, morality and health. Article 26 confers the right to establish institutions for religious or charitable purposes and to maintain its own affairs in the matter of religion, on every religious denomination, subject to public order, morality and health."

Even otherwise, the bench observed that Petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 92 of CPC. Thus, it refused to exercise the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Accordingly it disposed of the petition.

Case Title: EDURKALA ISHWARA BHAT v. RAGHAVESHWARA BHARATHI SWAMIJI

Case No: W.P. NO.25124 OF 2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 398

Date of Order: 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

Appearance: S.S. NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL A/W Advocate S.G. PRASHANTH MURTHY, FOR SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE for petitioners; UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR MANMOHAN P.N. ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG A/W S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R3; ASG H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, FOR R4; ADVOCATE E.I. SANMATHI, FOR R5