Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Telangana Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act

Apart from challenging the constitutionality of the Act, the petition filed through Advocate-On-Record Rashi Bansal has also assailed orders passed by the commissioner of endowments appointing an Executive Officer for the temple.

While issuing notice, the Bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti has also stayed these orders.

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Vibha Dutta Makhikja, have claimed that, through these impugned orders, the Telangana Government is attempting to take over the said Temple and remove the Petitioners. Against this backdrop, it has been argued that the mentioned Act and the challenged order are ultra-vires, inter-alia, Articles 14 (Equality before law), 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion), and 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs). 

The Act has been challenged on the basis that it gives the government unfettered power, as it can replace the management of any temple without any reason.

“Under the said Act, the Respondent Government has unfettered powers to supersede the administration of any temple and to replace the management of any temple with a board of trustees of their choice, run by an Executive Officer, under the directions of the Respondent Government. This power can be exercised under the Act, without the need for any cause, or reason, in a completely arbitrary fashion.,” the petition stated.

The Petition has cited the case of Pannalal Bansilal Pittie v State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 2 SCC 498 to put forth the argument that it is not the job of officers of a secular government to run temples. Besides, it has also been averred that the management and administration of a temple are an essential part of the right to religion.

It was further submitted that the Government can only take over the management to cure financial maladministration. Thereafter, the management of the said temple has to be returned.

“It is submitted that as per law laid down by this Hon'ble Court, the Respondent-Government is only empowered to take over the management and administration of a temple in order to cure financial maladministration, and then the management of the said temple is to be returned to the person concerned. It was held that supersession of management indefinitely would tantamount to violation of proprietary and fundamental rights. [Subramanian Swamy v State of Tamil Nadu (2014) 5 SCC 75]”

In view of this, the petition has now been filed contending that the Government has misused the provisions of this Act and appointed an Executive Officer to take charge of the Temple without prescribing any cause and in perpetuity.

Advocate Vishesh Kanodia briefed Senior Advocate Vibha Dutta Makhikja. 

Case Title: MADAPATHI NAGENDRAPPA vs. STATE OF TELANGANA, Diary No.- 8688 - 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order