the honourable mr.justice anand byrareddy and …judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/...1...
Post on 02-Sep-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH
DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION Nos.64805-64868 OF 2011 (GM-R/C)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION Nos.65648-65680 OF 2011 (GM-R/C)
WRIT PETITION Nos.72157 OF 2012 AND 80796-80822 OF
2013 (GM-R/C)
WRIT PETITION No.65539 OF 2012 (GM-R/C)
IN W.P.Nos.64805-64868/2011
BETWEEN:
1. Shri Maha Ganapati Shankara
Devasthana, Sirsi,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Sole Trustee,
Shri Gajanan S Hegde.
2. Shri Bhuvararah Narasimh
Devasthan, Halashi,
2
Khanapur, Belgaum District,
Represented by its sole Trustee,
Shri V.V.Paripatyadar.
3. Shri Ganapati Devasthan,
College Road,
Belgaum,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Prabhakar B Chopade.
4. Shri Shanishawar Dev.
Patil Galli, Belgaum,
Represented by its Poojari and
Trustee, Shri Anand V Adhyapak.
5. Shri Paramarth Niketan Trust,
Shri Hari Mandir,
Angol Road, Belgaum,
Represented by its President,
Shri Chaitanya Kamalakar Mallapur.
6. Shri Parati Nagalingeshwar Trust,
Ankali Road, Chikkodi,
Belgaum District,
Represented by its Chairman,
Shri R.M.Musandi.
7. Shri Maruti Dev,
Karward, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Dattatray R Swar.
8. Shri Marikamba Temple,
Sirsi, U.K.District,
Represented by its President.
3
Shri Rajaram M Hegde.
9. Shri Ramanath Devasthan,
Majali, Karwar, U.K.District.
Represented by its sole Trustee,
Shri Raveendra N Powar.
10. Shri Siddivinayak Dev,
Chandaguli, Yellapur,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Venkatraman S Bhat.
11. Shri Gramadevi Devasthan,
Yellapur, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Rajaram B Bhat.
12. Shri Shivanath Dev Temple,
Mudgeri, Karwar,
U.K.District,
represented by its Trustee,
Shri Shiva V Naik.
13. Shri Ramaling Dev,
Idgundi, Yellapur,
U.K.District,
represented by its Trustee,
Shri Krishna T Gaonkar.
14. Shri Shanta Durga Devi Temple,
Ankola, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Sheshagiri V Nadakarni.
4
15. Shri Aryadurga Devi Samsthan,
Ankola, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Krishna D Shetty.
16. Shri Ravalanath Devasthan,
Bangarpet, Khanapur,
Belgaum District,
Represented by its President,
Shri B.R. Chitragar.
17. Shri Bankanatheshwara and
Kashivishweshvar Temples,
Bankikodla, Kumta,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Secretary,
Shri Atmaram S Balavalli.
18. Shri Seeta Rameshwar Dev,
Bankikodla, Kumata,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Chairman,
Shri Shreedhar R Murudeshwar.
19. Shri Hanumanta Dev Temple,
Chandavar, Kumata,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri A.R.Naik.
20. Shri Shantika Parameshwari Devasthana,
Nadumaskeri, Kumata,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee.
Shri V.G.Gaonkar.
5
21. Shri Bobbar Dev,
Vannalli, Kumata,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Goli Annappa Naik.
22. Shri Durgadevi Devasthan,
Devikhan, Manki,
Honnavar, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Narayan R Bhat.
23. Shri Laxminarayan Devasthan,
Durgakeri, Honnavar,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shri K.N.Hegdekar.
24. Shri Subramanya Dev,
Mugwa, Honnavar,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shri Subray T Hegde.
25. Shri Mariyamma @ Dandin Durga Devi,
Honnavar, U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shri A.N.Mesta.
26. Shri Ramanath Grama Purush Devasthan,
Hankon, Karwar,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shri Narayan R Naik.
6
27. Shri Durga Parameshwari Temple,
Alvekodi, Bhatkal,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shri Ramanath V Pai.
28. Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan,
Haliyal, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Anil K. Bacholkar.
29. Shri Grama Devasthana,
Amdalli, Karwar,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Dinkar S Gaonkar.
30. Shri Shivanath Ravalanath Devasthan,
Baad, Karward, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee.
Shri S.V.Shirodkar.
31. Shri Shanta Durga Mahamaya @
Mahamaya Temple, Sadashivgada,
Karwar, U.K.District,
Represented by its Treasurer,
Shri Shivanand G Rane.
32. Shri Keshava Narayana Mahadev,
BhuDevi Trust Committee,
Chendiya, Karwar,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri C.B.Naik.
7
33. Shri Mahadeva Vinayaka Devasthan,
Baad, Karwar,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shri Shivanand D Kadam.
34. Shri Vinayaka Dev,
Madguni, Kumata,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri R.V.Bhat.
35. Shri Vishveshwar Dev Trust,
Antravalli, Kumata,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri R.V.Bhat.
36. Shri Maruti Devasthan Trust,
Havagi, Haliyal,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shri Devaraj R Patil.
37. Shri Vinayak Dev,
Uppinapattan,
Kumata, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri V.G.Bhat.
38. Shri Sharadamba Devi Devasthan,
Rathabeedi, Honnavar,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
8
Shri R.J.Mesta.
39. Shri Ganapati Devasthan,
Rathabeedi, Honnavar,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Tulasidas S Shet.
40. Shri Ganapati Dev,
Hunasekoppa, Sirsi,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri C.N.Hegde.
41. Shri Shanata Durga Devi,
Grama Devi, Bommayya Dev,
Veera Dev, Hichakada,
Ankola, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Vithoba B Nayak.
Note: Trust not having its seal.
42. Shri Dharanath Dev,
Dhareshvar, Kumata,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Laxman M Prabhu.
43. Shri Shri Kshetra Sogal Jeernodhar Samiti,
Savadatti, Belgaum District,
Represented by its Chairman,
Shri D.V.Sangannavar.
44. Shri Ramalingeshvara Devasthana,
Mavinamane, Yellapur,
9
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Ganesh Hebbar.
45. Shri Shantika Parameshvari Devi,
Hegade, Kumata,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Nagesh B Shanbhag.
46. Shri Kumbheshvara Devasthan,
Kumata, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri V.G.Bhat.
47. Shri Shantika Parameshvari Devasthana,
Heravatta, Kumta, U.K.District,
Represented by its Presidetn.
Shri Shirinivas G Shanbhag.
48. Shri Venkatraman Devasthana,
Ankola, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri K.I.Naik.
49. Shri Maha Ganapati Devalaya,
Kondi, Siddapur,
U.K.District,
Represnted by its Trustee,
Shri L.G.Bhat.
50. Shri Gangadhareshvara Devalaya,
Kondi, Siddapur,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
10
Shri L.G.Bhat.
51. Shri Suryanarayana Devaru,
Bisalakoppa, Sirsi,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shri Subray S Bhat.
52. Shri Ganapati Dev,
Sannalli, Sirsi,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shri Shripad G Hegde.
53. Shri Satyanatheshvara Devasthana,
Bakkala, Sirsi,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Gajanan N Bhat.
54. Shri Laxmi Narasimha Devaru,
Benli-Onikeri, Sirsi,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Ganapati D Hegde.
55. Shri Madhukeshvara Devasthana,
Banavasi, Sirsi,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Chairman,
Shri T.G. Nadiger.
56. Shri Laxmi Devi,
Basawan Galli,
Belgaum,
11
Represented by its Trustee,
Smt. Pushpalata B Kammar.
57. Shri Gopalkrishna Dev,
Kulkod, Honnavar,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Tulasidas H Shet.
58. Havyaka Grama Samsthe,
Shri Durga Parameshvari,
Shri Sarpakarneshvar Dev,
Shri Chenna Keshava Dev,
Shri Mood Ganapati Dev,
Karki, Honnavar,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Sole Trustee,
Shri H.T.Bhagvat.
59. Shri Ishvara Dev,
Hasvante, Siddapur,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shri Holiyappa B Gouda.
60. Shri Kote Vinayaka Devasthana
Guddetota, Siddapur,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Ganapati H Bhat.
61. Shri Maha Ganapati Devasthana,
Itaguli, Sirsi,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
12
Shri Ramachandra R Hegde.
62. Shri Ganapati Devaru,
Shivalli Matha,
Sirsi, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Venkataraman T Hegde.
63. Shri Laxminarayana Devasthana,
Kanabargi, Belgaum,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shri Laxmikanth K Deshpande.
64. Shri Datta Sansthan,
Balekundri, Belgaum,
Represented by its Vice President,
Shri Pratap S Kulakarni.
… PETITIONERS
(By Shri Subramanya Jois, Senior Advocate for Shri A.P.Hegde
Janmane, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. Secretary to Government,
Department of Endowment and
Charitable Institutions,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore.
13
3. Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Institutions and
Charitable Endowments,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore.
4. Deputy Commissioner,
Uttara Kannada District,
Karwar.
5. Deputy Commissioner,
Belgaum District,
Belgaum.
… RESPONDENTS
(By Shri M.N.Rao, Senior Advocate for Shri C.S.Patil,
Government Advocate)
These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to declare that the Karnataka Hindu
Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment)
Act, 2011 (Karnataka Act No.27 of 2011) as discriminatory,
violative of constitutional rights, unconstitutional and strike down
the same in its entirety and etc;
IN W.P.Nos.65648-65680/2011
BETWEEN:
1. Shri Mhatobar Murudeshwar Temple,
Murudeshwar, Taluk Bhatkal,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Managing Trustee,
Shri R.N.Shetty.
14
2. Shree Hanumanth Devaru,
Nadig Galli, Sirsi,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shri L.G.Raykar.
3. Shree Venkatraman Dev.
Shree Kshetra Manjaguni,
Sirsi Taluk, U.K.District,
Represented by its Administrator,
Shri Shrinivas A Bhat.
4. Shree Ashwath Ganapati Devasthan,
Tadadi, Kumta Taluk,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shree Dattatraya S Chodankar.
5. Shree Shankar Narayan Dev.
Tenkankeri, Tal-Ankola,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shree Venkatraman G Naik.
6. Shree Kogre Gram Dev Trust,
Kogre, Tal-Ankola,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Managing Trustee,
Shree Govindray R Nayak.
7. Shree Maruti Devasthan Anesalu,
Bilagi, Tal-Siddapur,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
15
Shree Shantaram G Gouda.
8. Shree Sadashiv Dev Aghanashini,
Kumta Taluk, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shree Narayan V Sabhahit.
9. Shree Jaganmata Durga Parameshwari Temple,
Kadavinakatta,
Bhatkal Taluk, U.K.District,
Represented by its Managing Trustee,
Shree Shankar V Acharya.
10. Shree Vanadevate and Chennakeshav
Devasthan, Yafadimath,
Tal-Sirsi, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shree Dinesh G Hegde.
11. Shree Channapattan Hanumant Temple,
Rathabeedi, Bhatkal,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shree Surendra H Shanbhag.
12. Shree Rameshwar Dev.
Ramateertha, Tal-Honnavar,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shree Vithal S bhat.
13. Shree Siddhalingeshwar Devasthan
Siddheshwar,
Tal-Kumta, U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
16
Shree Subray M Bhat.
14. Shreee Channeshwar Ramalinga Dev,
Arabail, Tal-Yellapur,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shree Bhaskar S Bhat.
15. Shree Gopalkrishna Temple,
Analgar, Tal-Yellapur,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shree Gopalkrishna T Bhat.
16. Shree Kanchika Parameshwari Dev.
Baad, Gudengadi,
Tal-Kumta, U.K.District,
Represented by its Managing Trustee,
Shree Gajanan M Pavaskar.
17. Shree Laxmidevi and Shree Dyamavva,
Gokak, Belgaum Dsitrict,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shree Ravindra R Maldinni.
18. Shree Kalmeshwar Devasthan,
Halur, Mundgod,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shree K.B.Kollanavar.
19. Shree Kalmeshwar,
Shree Maruti,
Shree Marevva and
Durgavva Temple Trust,
17
Represented by its Trustee,
Shree M.C.Patil.
20. Shree Basavanna Devasthan,
Mundgod, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shree K.b.Kollanavar.
21. Shree Mahaganapati Devasthan,
Hale Bazar, Ankola,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shree Ganapati Shetty.
22. Shree Shanta Durga Devi,
Gramadevi, Bommayya Dev and
Beera Dev. Hichakada,
Ankola, U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shree Vithoba B Naik.
23. Shree Bhatte Vinayak Devasthan
Hosamath, Tal-Siddapur,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shree L.V.Hegde.
24. Shree Shantika Parameshwari Devasthan,
Holegadde, Tal-Kumta,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Shree Ram S bhat.
25. Shree Chavateppa Devasthan,
Guttigeri, Haliyal,
18
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shree Sajjan Shivappa.
26. Shree Sooryanarayan Devasthan,
Mundaki, Tal-Haliyal,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shree Rudrappa D Dhepi.
27. Shree Temples Trust Committee,
Tergaon, Tal-Haliyal,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shree N.G.Patankar.
28. Shree Venkatraman Devasthan,
Haliyal, U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shree Aravind Hallikeri.
29. Shree Maruti Devasthan,
Horagina Guttigeri,
Haliyal, U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shree Maruti Patil.
30. Shree Bakambika Trust Committee,
Antrolli, Tal-Haliyal,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Shree Subhas Bhovi.
31. Shree Pete Basaveshwara Devasthan,
Haliyal, U.K.District,
19
Represented by its Trustee,
Shree Shivanand Shettar.
32. Shree Durgadevi Trust Committee,
Kusur, Tal-Mundgod,
Represented by President,
Shree L.D.Ratod.
33. Shree Udachavva Devi,
Laxmi Devi Trust,
Gramadevi Galli,
Haliyal, U.K.District,
Represented by its Chairman,
Shree Mangesh R Deshapande.
…PETITIONERS
(By Shri Subramanya Jois, Senior Advocate for Shri A.P.Hegde
Janmane, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. Secretary to Government,
Endowment Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore.
3. Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Institutions and
20
Charitable Endowments,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore.
4. Deputy Commissioner,
Uttara Kannada,
Karwar.
5. Deputy Commissioner,
Belgaum District,
Belgaum.
… RESPONDENTS
(By Shri M.N.Rao, Senior Advocate for Shri C.S.Patil,
Government Advocate)
These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to declare that the Karnataka Hindu
Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment)
Act, 2011 (Karnataka Act No.27 of 2011) as discriminatory,
violative of constitutional rights, unconstitutional and strike down
the same in its entirety and etc;
IN W.P.Nos.72157/2012 AND 80796-80822/ 2013
BETWEEN:
1. Shri Durgadevi Temple Trust Committee,
Hirekerur, Haveri District.
Represented by its Chairman
Shri Jagdish B. Tambakad.
2. Shri Kokkeshwar Shambhuling Dev
Manki, Tal- Honaavar,
U.K. District,
21
Represented by its Managing Trustee
Nagraj Ganapati Naik.
3. Shri Channabasaveshwar Trust Committee,
Ulavi, Taluk: Joida, U.K. District,
Represented by its Vice Chairman
Sanjay B. Kittur.
4. Shri Laxmi Narasimha Adi Keshav Dev
Kaginelli, Taluk: Byadagi, Haveri District,
Represented by its President
Krishna G. Kulkarni.
5. Shri Bommayya Devaru
Tenkankeri, Taluk: Ankola,
U.K. District, Represented by its
Defacto Trustee Govindray V. Naik.
6. Shri Mahaganapati Devasthan,
Heepanalli, Taluk: Sirsi, U.K. District,
Represented by its President
Manjunath M. Hegde.
7. Shri Shanta Durga Devi Temple Trust
Committee, Ankola, U.K. District,
Represented by its Managing Trustee
S.V. Nadkarni.
8. Shri Laxminarayan Dev,
Honnavar, U.K. District,
Represented by its President
K.N. Hegdekar.
9. Shri Ganapat Dev,
Vaishya Vani Samaj,
Rathbeedi, Honaavar, U.K. District,
22
Represented by its Trustee
Tulsidas Shet.
10. Shri Chennakeshav Devaru,
Shigehalli, Taluk: Sirsi, U.K. District,
Represented by its Trustee
Shantaram V. Hegde.
11. Shri Vithal Rukumayi Devasthan,
Honnavar, Represented by its Trustee
Madhav Keshav Shet.
12. Shri Shambhuling Dev,
Ram Kshatriya Samithi,
Kokkeshwar, Manki, Taluk: Honnavar, U.K. District,
Represented by its President
Hanumant Manjunath Naik.
13. Shri Shambhuling Dev,
Gunavanthe, Taluk: Honnavar, U.K. District,
Represented by its Trustee
Narayan Rama Pandit.
14. Shri Rameshwar Dev,
Ramatirtha, Taluk: Honnavar, U.K. District,
Represented by its Trustee
Vithal S. Bhat.
15. Shri Gopalkrishna Dev,
Kulkod, Taluk: Honnavar, U.K. District,
Reprseented by its Trustee
Tulsidas Hari Shet.
16. Shri Mallikarjun Devastan,
Haliyal, U.K. District,
23
Represented by its Trustee
A.K. Bacholkar.
17. Shri Durgadevi Devikan,
Manki, Taluk: Honnavar, U.K. District,
Represented by its Trustee
Narayan R. Bhat.
18. Shri Holevatar Dev,
Vandige, Taluk: Ankola, U.K. District,
Represented by its President
Harish Devanna Naik.
19. Shri Bommayya Dev & Biligiri Amma Dev,
Bole-Hoskeri, Taluk: Ankola, U.K. District,
Represented by its Trustee
Chandrahas Krishna Naik.
20. Shri Bobrudev Development Committee,
Bobruwada, Taluk: Ankola, U.K. District,
Represented by its President
Pratap Naik.
21. Shri Gramadev & Parivar Devaru,
Alageri, Taluk: Ankola, U.K. District,
Represented by its Trustee
Sheshagiri Mahadev Naik.
22. Shri Dattatraya Devasthan,
Avarsa, Tal-Ankola,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Vasant Dattaram Shet.
23. Shri Ramanath Dev.
24
Asnoti, Tal-Karwar,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Prabhakar Salunke.
24. Shri Kshetra Sogala Jeernodhara
Samithi, Sogala,
Tal-Savadatti,
Belgaum District,
Represented by its Chairman,
D.V.Sangannavar.
25. Shri Laxmi Narasimha Devaru,
Onikeri, Tal-Sirsi,
U.K.District,
Represented by its President,
Ganapati Dattatraya Hegde.
26. Shri Shantika Parameshwari and
Parivar Devaru,
Aggargon, Tal-Honnavar,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Trustee,
Dayanand Narayan Nayak.
27. Shri Choleshwar Devasthan,
Nehru Road, Bhatkal,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Vahivatdar,
Prakash R Adiga.
28. Shri Kasmudi Hanumant Temple,
Chouthani, Bhatkal,
U.K.District,
Represented by its Vahivatdar,
25
Prakash R Adiga.
…PETITIONERS
(By Shri Subramanya Jois, Senior Advocate for Shri A.P.Hegde
Janmane, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. Secretary to Government,
Endowment Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore.
3. Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Institutions and
Charitable Endowments,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore.
4. Deputy Commissioner,
Uttara Kannada,
Karwar.
5. Deputy Commissioner,
Belgaum District,
Belgaum.
… RESPONDENTS
26
(By Shri M.N.Rao, Senior Advocate for Shri C.S.Patil,
Government Advocate)
These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to declare that the Karnataka Hindu
Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment)
Act, 2011 (Karnataka Act No.27 of 2011) as discriminatory,
violative of constitutional rights, unconstitutional and strike down
the same in its entirety and etc;
IN W.P.No.65539/2012
BETWEEN:
Shri Mahakali (Mayakka) Devi Trust,
Chinchali, Tal-Raybag,
Belgaum District,
Represented by its President,
Jeetendra Rachoji Rao Jadhav,
Aged about 50 years,
President,
Shri Mahakali (Mayakka) Devi Trust,
Chinchali, Tal-Raybag,
Belgaum District.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri Subramanya Jois, Senior Advocate for Shri A.P.Hegde
Janmane, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha,
27
Bangalore.
2. State of Karnataka,
Secretary to Government,
Endowment Department,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore.
3. Commissioner,
Hindu Religious Institutions and
Charitable Endowments,
K.G.Road,
Bangalore.
4. Deputy Commissioner,
Belgaum District,
Belgaum.
5. Assistant Commissioner,
Chikkodi Sub-Division,
Chikkodi, District Belgaum.
…RESPONDENTS
(By Shri M.N.Rao, Senior Advocate for Shri C.S.Patil,
Government Advocate)
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to declare that the Karnataka Hindu
Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment)
Act, 2011 (Karnataka Act No.27 of 2011) as discriminatory,
violative of constitutional rights, unconstitutional and strike down
the same in its entirety and etc;
28
These petitions having been heard and reserved on
05.10.2015 at Dharwad Bench, Dharwad and coming on for
pronouncement of Orders at the Principal Bench, Bengaluru, this
day, Anand Byrareddy J., delivered the following:-
ORDER
These petitions are heard and disposed of by this common
order.
2. The petitions in WP 65648-680/2011 and WP 64805-
868/2011, which are filed challenging the constitutional validity
of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable
Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2011 (Act no.22/2011), were by
an order dated 9.2.2012, directed by a learned single judge to be
placed before a division bench - for disposal, with an intention
that one stage of appeal be avoided and having regard to the need
for an expeditious decision by this court.
3. The background to the legislation in controversy is
stated to be as follows :-
29
The State of Mysore, which stood reorganized by the
States Re-organisation Act, 1956, (Hereinafter referred to as the
‘SR Act’, for brevity) with effect from 1.11.1956 and which stood
re-christened as the State of Karnataka, with effect from
1.11.1973, is composed of the erstwhile princely State of Mysore,
the erstwhile province of Coorg and parts of the erstwhile States
of Bombay, Hyderabad and Madras.
In each of the above States and province, there were
separate enactments governing temples and other religious
institutions situate within those regions. With the coming into
force of the SR Act, it became obligatory for the State of Mysore
to enact a uniform law, which would govern all the temples,
religious institutions, denominations, maths etcetera. In this
regard, there were said to be two abortive attempts in the year
1963 and in 1977, respectively, to remove the inequality between
temples and the maths situated in South Kanara District and those
situated in other parts of the State. The Apex Court had thus been
prompted to observe in the case of Shri Swamiji of Admar Math v.
30
The Commissioner, HR & C Endowment Department, AIR 1980
SC 1; that the State did not make any effort to bring a uniform
law which would be applicable to the entire State, in the matter of
governance of Hindu Religious denominational temples etc.
It was only in the year 1997 that the Karnataka Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Bill was said to have been
introduced, which had received the assent of the President of India
as on 25.10.2001. Pursuant to which, it was enacted as Karnataka
Act no.33 of 2001. It was brought into force vide notification
dated 1.5.2003.
However, by a notification dated 30.4.2003, a day before
the Act was brought into force, 34000 temples were declared as
notified temples for purposes of Section 23 of the Act. This was
promptly challenged by the Devalaganagapur
Narasimhasaraswathi Math, Ganagapura, before the Gulbarga
Bench of this court. A learned single judge had quashed the said
notification, which was affirmed by a division bench in appeal.
The matter is said to be pending before the Apex Court.
31
The Karnataka Act no.33/2001 itself having been assailed
in a large number of writ petitions before this court, a learned
single judge had dismissed the same. In appeals before a Division
bench, it was held that the enactment was ultra vires Articles 14,
25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. That verdict is the subject
matter of appeals before the Apex Court. There was an interim
order granted by the Apex Court dated 2.4.2007 to the following
effect :-
" Issue notice.
Interim stay in the meantime.
Ms.Kiran Suri, Mr.S.N.Bhat and Mr.P.P.Singh,
Advocates takes notice on behalf of the
respondents."
By a further Order dated 31.7.2009, the same was modified
as follows :-
"Interim Order dated 02.04.2007 is vacated in so
far as Section 25 of the Act is concerned."
This was possibly on account of the complaint of the
respondents therein that the State was seeking to arbitrarily
32
exercise power under Section 25 of the Act, by virtue of the Order
of stay.
Further, even during the pendency of the appeals before the
Apex Court, the State Government is said to have constituted a
High Level Committee, headed by Justice M. Rama Jois (Retired),
to give suggestions for better administration of temples in the
State and to make recommendations for amendment to the
Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1997 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KHRICE
Act’, for brevity). The said Committee having submitted its
report, the State Government is said to have enacted Act no. 27 of
20ll, (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘2011 Amendment Act’, for
brevity) purportedly making comprehensive amendments to the
principal Act. The amendments were said to have been given
effect to from 4.5.2011.
The State had hence filed an application seeking permission
to enforce the amended Section 25 of the Act as amended by the
2011 Amendment Act. The said application was disposed of by
33
the Apex Court, by an order dated 10.10.2011, in the following
terms :
"The State has filed an application (I.A.no.17)
seeking permission to give effect to the amended Section
25 of the Act.
The interim Order granted was with reference to
the then existing Section 25. Amended Section 25 is not
the subject matter of the said interim order. Therefore
the application is redundant. It is open to the writ
petitioners who have challenged the amended Section 25
to seek interim relief before the High Court.
I A no.17 is disposed of accordingly. "
Now during the pendency of these petitions, challenging the
constitutional validity of the 2011 Amendment Act, which
primarily centres around Section 25 of the principal Act (Act
no.33/2001), the said section which was inserted in the Principal
Act with the amendments brought about by the 20ll Amendment
Act has now been "omitted" from the statute book by the
Karnataka Act no.12/2012, (Hereinafter referred to as the "2012
Amendment Act" ) and a new Section is "inserted" in its place.
34
The Apex Court having been moved for further directions
in the wake of the above development. The Apex Court has made
the following Order dated 24.3.2015 :-
“The validity of Karnataka Hindu Religious
Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1977 has
been struck down by the High Court by the impugned
order dated 8th
September, 2006 of the High Court. By
interim order dated 2nd
April, 2007 passed in the Civil
Appeal No.5924 of 2008 (Arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.5398 of 2007), operation of the order of
the High Court has been stayed. The effect of the interim
order dated 2nd
April, 2007 is that the aforesaid Act of 1997
continues to be in force. In the meantime, the aforesaid Act
of 1997 has been amended and we are told that the validity
of the said amendment is pending consideration in the Writ
Petition (s) before the High Court.
In the circumstances, we defer the hearing of these
appeals until decision of the Karnataka High Court is
rendered in the Writ Petition (s) challenging the validity of
the amendment to the aforesaid Act of 1997. We request
the Karnataka High Court to expedite the hearing of the
Writ Petition(s) and conclude the same as early as possible
and let this Court have the benefit of its views in the matter.
Let this order be brought to the notice of the
Karnataka High Court by the respective parties.”
35
4. At the hearing of these petitions, when it was pointed out
by the learned Senior Advocate, Shri M.N.Rao appearing for the
State - that Section 25 of the Principal Act as amended by the
2011 Amendment Act was no longer on the statute book, an
application was filed in the petition in WP 64805 - 868 of 2011,
seeking to include an additional prayer specifically challenging
Act 12/2012 on the same grounds on which the 2011 Amendment
Act is challenged, as follows :
"To declare and strike down Karnataka Act
no.12/2012 also which professes to further amend a still
born and void Karnataka Act no.33/2001, as void,
inoperative and unenforceable."
5. The learned Senior Advocate, Shri Subramanya Jois,
appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioners would
contend that the Apex Court in the case of Shri Swamiji of Admar
Math, supra, had indicated that Section 119 of the SR Act was
intended to serve a temporary purpose. In that, it was to enable
the new units to consider the special circumstances on the diverse
36
units before launching upon a process of adaptation of laws so as
to make them reasonably uniform having regard to the special
needs of the various regions. And that - Acts, Rules and
Regulations whose constitutional validity is upheld and could be
upheld only on the ground that no violation, per se, of Article 14
is involved in the application of different laws to different
components of a State, if the area to which unequal laws are
applied has become a part of the State as a result of the States Re-
organisation, it cannot continue to apply to such area, indefinitely.
Further, that inequality was writ large on the face of the Madras
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, in its
application to the District of South Kanara and "perilously near
the periphery of unconstitutionality", that the Apex court had
restrained itself from declaring the law as inapplicable to the said
region, in the hope that the State Government would act promptly
and move an appropriate legislation, possibly with in a year from
the date of pronouncement of its judgment, namely, 27.8.1979.
37
It is contended, that lamentably the State Legislature has
only embarked on further confounding the situation as is evident
from the above sequence of events.
It is pointed out by Shri Jois that in the Civil Appeals before
the Apex Court, by the State, challenging the judgment of a
division bench of this court in the case of Shri Sahasra
Lingeshwara temple v. State of Karnataka, 2007(1) Kar.LJ 1,
wherein there was an interim order of stay, dated 2.4.2007, it was
the fervent plea of the State to the following effect :
“ It is submitted that, considering the grievance urged
by the respondents petitioners the State is proposing to make
necessary amendment to the Act to include under the purview
of the Act and Mutts, the Temples attached to Mutts,
denomination temples and to include the Religious and
Charitable Institutions of Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs under
the purview of the Act. Hence, on this ground also the
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Karnataka required to be reversed by recording the
submissions of the State to carry out necessary amendments
to the Act.”
38
It is contended that it has been held in Sahasra
Lingeshwara's case that the legislation in its entirety was struck
down. But the State was proceeding on a mistaken impression
that the interim order of the Apex Court dated 2.4.2007, as having
revived the Karnataka Act no.33/2001, enabling it to "amend" the
said enactment vide the 2011 Amendment Act. The same is under
challenge in these petitions on grounds and contentions fully
covered in their favour by the pronouncement rendered, albeit in
the context of Karnataka Act no. 33/2001, in Sahasra
Lingeshwara's case.
Attention is drawn to the "Statement of Objects and
Reasons" preceding the 2011 Amendment Act, to contend that the
same illegalities, discrimination and unconstitutionality,
graphically elucidated in Sahasra Lingeshwara's case have been
contumaciously reintroduced. As for instance, keeping out of the
purview of the legislation maths and temples attached to maths,
having been found fault with in Sahasra Lingeshwara; And
further, the Report of the Committee headed by Justice Rama Jois
39
also having concluded that such an exclusion is violative of
Articles 14,25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, the State has
proceeded to literally overturn the verdict of this Court.
It is urged that the Amending Act of 2012 only seeks to
reintroduce the very same unconstitutional provisions - with
cosmetic changes - and is therefore a repeated affront to this
Court.
It is emphasized that neither the Amending Act of 2011 nor
the Amending Act of 2012 claim to be in the nature of validating
legislation, but are clearly Acts amending and further amending
the Principal Act, which, at best, is in suspended animation by
virtue of the interim order of stay granted by the Apex Court.
Shri Jois would thus contend that Karnataka Act
No.33/2001 having been struck down as being unconstitutional,
the purported amendments thereto do not constitute either a
validation or a fresh enactment, particularly because far from
addressing and removing the anomalies pointed out by this court
in Sahasra Lingeshwara’s case, the same have been reintroduced
40
arbitrarily, contumaciously, and for the reasons mentioned in the
respective Statements of Objects and Reasons, published for
introducing the respective Bills. The same being impermissible in
law, as laid down by the Supreme Court, inter alia in the case of
Sri Prithvi Cotton Mills Limited vs. Broach Borough Municipality
and others, AIR 1970 SC 192. While the legislature has
competence under the Constitution to pass a law and also to pass a
validating law. A validation must necessarily remove the defect
which the courts had found in the “existing law”, and adequate
provisions for validating the existing law should be made. The
said ruling having been followed in several later rulings of the
apex court and in particular in the case of State of Tamilnadu vs.
State of Kerala, AIR 2014 SC 2407, in which it has been laid
down that “in exercising legislative power, the legislature, by
mere declaration, without anything more, cannot directly over-
rule, revise or overwrite a judicial decision, but it can render a
judicial decision by enacting valid law on the topic within its
legislative field fundamentally altering or changing its character
41
retrospectively. The changes or altered condition are such that the
previous decision would not have been rendered by the court if
those conditions had existed at the time of declaring the law as
invalid….. The consistent thread that runs through all the
decisions of this Court is that the legislature cannot directly
overrule the decision or make a direction as not binding on it, but
has power to make the decision ineffective by removing the base
on which the decision was rendered; consistent with the law of the
constitution, and the legislature must have the competence to do
the same.” In Paragraph 79 of the said decision, quoting
Thomas Cooley as noticed by Scelia J, in the case of Paul Tetal
vs. Spend Thrift Farm incorporated (1995)514 US 211, the
Supreme Court has stated thus:
“If the legislature cannot indirectly control
the action of the courts by requiring them a
construction of the law according to its own views, it
is very plain that it cannot do so directly by setting
aside their judgments, compelling to grant new trials
ordering the discharge of offenders or directing what
particular steps shall be taken in the progress of a
42
judicial inquiry …. Having achieved finality,
however, a judicial decision becomes the last word
of the judicial department with regard to a
particular case or controversy and congress may not
declare by retroactive legislation that the law
applicable to that very case was something other
than what the court said it was.”
It is contended that Paragraphs 82,84,85,96 in particular are
quite apt and relevant in the context and fully support the above
contention of the petitioners.
It is emphasized that the interim order staying the judgment
in Sahasra Lingeshwara’s case cannot and has not revived the
Karnataka Act No.33/2001 nor can the effect of the said order be a
revival or a restoration of a void legislation. Reliance, for this
proposition, is placed by the petitioners, inter alia, on the
following rulings:
(i) Bhram Kurshid Pesikaka vs. The State of Bombay, AIR
1955 SC 123,
(ii) Saghir Ahmed vs. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728
43
(iii) Deepchand vs. The State of UP and others, AIR 1959
SC 648,
(iv) Mahendralal Jaini vs. The State of U.P. and others,
AIR 1963 SC 1019,
(v) P.L.Mehra vs. D.R.Khanna and others, AIR 1971 Delhi
Page 1,
(vi) M/s Sree Chamundi Mopeds Limited vs. Church of
South India Trust Association, Madras, AIR 1992 SC 1439
(vii) Rudragowda vs. Angadi Chikanna, 1972(1) Mys.LJ
310.
The contention of the respondents that the impugned
enactments have been made in exercise of the State Legislative
power is untenable. Deepchand’s case supra is a direct answer.
The further contention of the State that the stay of the
judgment has given rebirth to or has brought back the still-born
Karnataka Act No.33/2001 is equally untenable, not only for the
reasons stated supra but also for the reason that the stay order does
44
not at all reflect a reasoned order, which is a necessity, according
to Shri Jois. Reliance in this regard is placed on Smt.Swaranlatha
Ghosh vs. Harindra Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1969 SC 1167, Ravi
Yashwanth Boir vs. The District Collector, Raigad, 2012(4) SCC
407).
The contention that the order dated 10.10.2011 holding IA
No.17 filed by the State as redundant, would lead to an inference
that the amendment holds the field or that Karnataka No.33/2001
would revive is also equally untenable for it is not the ratio
decidendi nor even obiter dicta. It is not either a declaration of
law or a precedent. In this regard, reliance is placed on Oriental
Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajkumari, 2007(12) SCC 768,
Padmasunder Rao vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2002(3) SCC 533,
Punjab National Bank vs. R.L.Vaid, 2004(7) SCC 698.
It is contended that the contentions of the respondents
regarding the absence of pleadings is untenable. It is emphasized
that the pleadings of the petitioners are clear and specific. It is not
the length of the petition, but the substance thereof which would
45
be relevant in the context. There is nothing wanting in the same.
Rulings which support their contentions, the backdrop of the case
and the chronology of events preceding the filing of the writ
petitions have all been candidly and specifically pleaded in the
petition. To pick holes in it, would be not only untenable, but
also unreasonable for the State which has not even filed any
pleading or statement of objections opposing the petitions, but has
sought to raise several contentions at the hearing which are not
founded on the pleadings.
As regards the formal amendments sought by the
petitioners, it had been specifically stated in the application filed
in that regard that the necessity to file the said application arose
only in view of the hyper-technical contention raised at the bar, in
the arguments of the respondents, and that on the very grounds on
which Karnataka Act No.27/2011 would commend being declared
void, Karnataka Act No.12/2012 would also meet the same fate.
Further that the petitioners have relied upon a relatively recent
ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshkumar Agarwal
46
vs. Rajmala Exports Private Limited and others, 2012(5) SCC
337, paragraphs 19 to 21 thereof, in particular, supporting the case
of the petitioners that the formal amendment sought is bona fide,
and legitimate. Particularly to avoid a multiplicity of litigation. It
is stated that the respondents have not come up with any statement
of objections for the last three years having contended that
Karnataka Act No.12/2012, which has been enacted later in point
of time is not specifically challenged, have filed their objections to
the amendment, however not attributing, any malice to the
petitioners in seeking the amendment.
The impugned enactments being void, and their invalidity
and unconstitutionality can conveniently be declared so for the
weighty reasons contained in the well-considered ruling in
Sahasra Lingeshwara’s case.
6. Shri M. N. Rao, on the other hand, would point out
that except the writ petitions in WP 65539/2011, the entire batch
of Writ Petitions, in WP 64805-868/2011, WP 72157/2012 and
47
WP 80796-80822/2013 and WP 64648/2011 are identical in
nature and prayers made are also identical. The petitioners in all
the writ petitions are Public Religious Charitable Trusts registered
under the erstwhile Bombay Trusts Act, 1950, which was repealed
by the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments
Act 1997 (Hereafter referred to as ‘Act No.33 of 2001’, ). The
prayers in the three Writ Petitions are identical.
Insofar as the writ petition is WP 65539 of 2011 is
concerned, the additional prayer is for quashing of the order
passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and
Charitable Endowments on 4.7.2012 appointing an administrator
in respect of the petitioner - trust.
In so far as the additional prayer in writ petition in WP
65539/2011 is concerned, the same is governed by the orders
passed on 23.9.2015 by this court in WP 70822-824/2012.
The following are the identical prayers in WP 84805-
868/2011, WP 72157/2012 and WP 80796-80822/2013 and WP
65648/2011:-
48
a) To declare that the Karnataka Hindu Religious
Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act 2011
(Karnataka Act No.27 of 2011) as discriminatory, violative of
Constitutional rights, unconstitutional and strike down the same in
its entirety;
b) Alternatively, to declare that Hindus as a religious
denomination within the meaning of Article 26 of Constitution of
India and accordingly to declare that Karnataka Hindu Religious
Institutions and Charitable Endowments (amendment) Act 2011
(Karnataka Act 27 of 2011) and Rules 2002, can have no
application to Hindus and their right to establish, manage and
administer their own Religious and charitable Institutions;
c) To issue directions to the State Government to enact
a legislation on the lines of Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 with
respect to Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions.
(i) It is contended that as regards the prayer for
declaration of Hindus as a religious denomination is concerned, it
deserves to be dismissed in view of the Constitution Bench
49
judgment of the Supreme Court in Shastri Yagnapurushasji and
others v. Muldas (AIR 1966 SC 1119), in which it was held that
Hinduism is a religion. (vide paras 26,27, 32). There are several
denominations within the fold of the Hindu religion and the same
is stated authoritatively by the 7 judge bench of the Supreme
Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v.
Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar AIR 1954 SC 282 (Shirur
Matt case – para 15)
As Hindus are not a religious denomination the
consequential prayer in B above does not arise.
(ii) The prayer C is totally misconceived. There cannot
be a direction to the State Government to enact a legislation
similar to the Bombay Public Trusts Act in respect of Hindu
Religious and Charitable Institutions. The legal principle in this
regard is well settled. In Supreme Court Employees Welfare
Association v. Union of India and another (1989) 4 SCC 187,
wherein it was held that Courts cannot direct government to make
law.
50
(iii) The prayer A relates to challenge to the
constitutionality of Karnataka Act 27/2011 (hereinafter referred to
as 2011 Amendment Act). Although the 2011 Amendment Act in
toto was challenged, the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioners by Shri Jois, Senior Advocate centred around Section
25 of the principal Act (Act No.33/2001). This Section 25 in the
principal Act has undergone amendments twice. Section 25 as
inserted in the principal Act with the amendments brought about
by the 2011 amendment Act was “omitted” from the statute book
by Karnataka Act No.13/2012 by which a new section was
“inserted” vide Section 12 of Act No.13/2012. When it was
pointed out to the Court that Section 25 of the principal Act as
amended by the 2011Amendment Act is no longer on the statute
book, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had, on
13.9.2015, filed an application in W.P.No.64805-868 praying for
raising an additional prayer specifically challenging Act 12/2012
on the same grounds on which the 2011 Amendment Act is
51
challenged in the batch of Writ Petitions. The specific prayer
sought is:-
“To declare and strike down Karnataka Act
No.12/2012 also which professes to further amend a still born and
void Karnataka Act No.33/2001 as void in operative and
unenforceable.”
It is contended that the application does not contain any
specific pleadings in regard to the prayer made. Hence, the prayer
is utterly untenable. The reasons are:-
a) It proceeds on the wrong and untested assumption
that Act 12/2012 “professes to amend a still born and void”
principal Act i.e. Act 33/2001 and hence Act No.12/2012 is also
inoperative and unenforceable.
b) The principal Act 33/2001 is under appeal in the
Supreme Court and an order of stay has been granted by the
Supreme Court on 2.4.2007. The Supreme Court also held in its
order dated 24.3.2015 that the Act will be in force (till the disposal
of the appeal). When the premise on which the additional prayer
52
is based itself has no foundation, the prayer becomes
unsustainable.
c) There are absolutely no pleadings as to why and on
what grounds the Act 12/2012 is unconstitutional. The grounds
on which the 2011 amendment Act has been challenged so far as
Section 25 is concerned are of no avail in deciding the validity of
Act 12/2012.
d) Section 25 of the principal Act as inserted by Act
No.12/2012 in certain respects is different from what was enacted
by the 2011 Amendment Act, especially addition of clause (d) in
sub-Section 2 excluding office bearers of political parties from
temple management committees, thus totally obliterating the basis
for the allegation of politicization of Hindu religious institutions.
It is further contended that the amendment application is
filed only in W.P.No.64805-868/2011. In the other connected
Writ Petitions i.e. W.P.No.65539, W.P.Nos.72157/12 and 80796-
80822/13 and W.P.No.65648/2011, there are no applications
seeking permission to incorporate an additional prayer.
53
With reference to the pleading in the writ petitions that the
Amendment Act of 2011 takes away the jurisdiction and quasi
judicial powers of authorities such as the Charity Commissioner
and other posts held be judicial officers under the Bombay Public
Trusts Act, 1950, and that those powers have been conferred on
Executive Officers - untrained in law to decide complicated
questions of law and therefore the independence of the judiciary
has been affected, Shri Rao would contend that that the Bombay
Public Trusts Act was repealed by Section 78 of Act No.33/2001.
The petitioners have no semblance of a legal right to make a
prayer of this nature without focussing on any legal principle on
the basis of which such a pleading could be made. No facts are
stated, and no instances where the authorities under the principal
Act 2001 have failed to decide the alleged “complicated questions
of law”. How the independence of judiciary is affected, the
pleadings are silent. It is submitted that this grievance is purely
imaginary, unrelated to the realities.
54
It is pointed out that in so far as the contention that the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India have been taken away by the constitution of
the Rajya and Zilla Dharmik Parishads and that their constitution
amounts to politicisation of the Hindu Religious Institutions etc.,
that the pleadings are vague and it is not specified as to how such
rights , qua the petitioners, have been violated.
In so far as the binding nature of the decision in Shri
Sahasra Lingeshwara 's case is concerned, it is contended by Shri
Rao that The judgment of the division bench dated 8.9.2006 is in
appeal before the Supreme Court. The present question raised
relating to discrimination is one of the points which will arise for
adjudication or resolution before the Supreme Court. That the
alleged ground of discrimination has no legal foundation as maths
are distinct and different from temples. The two belong to
different categories and the classification differentiating the two
does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Attention is drawn to
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri
55
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar AIR 1954 SC 282 (paras 15) and
Vishwothama Thritha v. State of Mysore AIR 1966 SC 1882 (para
21 and 22), in this regard.
In State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974) 4 SCC 656, the
Constitution Bench explained the concept of reasonable
classification (reference is drawn to paras 54 and 60, 61)
Another Constitution Bench in Shakawat Ali v. State of
Orissa, AIR 1955 SC 166 in para 10 held as follows:-
“The simple answer to this contention is that legislation
enacted for the achievement of a particular object or
purpose need not be all embracing. It is for the Legislature
to determine what categories it would embrace within the
scope of legislation and merely because certain categories
which would stand on the same footing as those which are
covered by the legislation are left out would not render
legislation which has been enacted in any manner
discriminatory and violative of the fundamental right
guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Further, the denominational temples have certain other
additional rights which they enjoy in contradistinction to the rights
and privileges of public temples. In this regard reference is made
56
to Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore AIR 1958 SC 255
(paras 24 and 32).
As regards the contention that the impugned legislation is in
breach of the dictum of the Apex Court in Admar Mutt case,
where the need for a uniform legislation was emphasized.
Attention is drawn to the following passage therein :
“A comprehensive legislation which will apply to
all temples and Mutts in Karnataka, which are equally
situated in the context of the levy of fee, may perhaps
afford a satisfactory solution to the problem. This,
however, is a tentative view-point because we have not
investigated whether the Madras Act of 1951, particularly
Section 76(1) thereof, is a piece of hostile legislation of
the kind that would involve the violation of Article 14.
Facts in regard thereto may have to be explored, if and
when occasion arises.”
And it is contended that a “tentative viewpoint” which is
not the outcome of any investigation from the highest court cannot
be approximated to a direction or a mandamus giving rise to a
valid cause of action. The only question before the Supreme
57
Court was whether the continued application of the Madras Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act to South Kanara was
violative of Article 14. The Supreme Court infact dismissed the
appeal of the petitioners.
In regard to the primary contention of the petitioners that
when the Principal Act was struck down by a Division Bench of
this court the Act is dead, void ab initio , and that the order of stay
granted by the Apex Court also cannot breathe life into it, is
concerned , it is pointed out that the The Supreme Court itself
has said in its order dated 24.3.2015 that the consequence of the
stay is that the “Act will be in force”, hence there is no merit in
the present contention.
What is the effect of interim stay granted by the Supreme
Court cannot be subject matter of issue before this Court, when
the Supreme Court itself has said that the Act will be in force.
Even if the Supreme Court had not observed that the Act
will be in force because of the stay the decisions rendered by the
Supreme Court clearly point out the same.
58
In the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain and
another , 1975 Supp SCC 1 the Supreme Court has held:
“The legal effect of that stay order was that
the trial court’s order……………………., “shall be deemed
never to have taken effect”… It did not matter if the stay
order, out of deference for existing precedents, had been
framed in the form of a “conditioned” stay that is to say, a
stay in law and effect with certain conditions annexed.”
“The operation of the judgment of the trial Court
and the consequential orders are stayed only on “sufficient
cause” shown on the facts of that case.”
Further in the judgment of Indira Nehru Gandhi (Smt.) vs.
Raj Narain 1975 SCC (2) 159 rendered by Justice Krishna Iyer, it
was held:
“the legal effect of an order of this Court
suspending the application of the judgment and order of the
High Court is that by sheer force of the first limb of this
court’s stay order, the judgment and order of the High
Court is nullified for the once i.e., till the appeal is
disposed of…… There is a plenary eclipse of the High
Court’s judgment and order during the pendency of the
appeal.”
59
As regards the contention that the Apex Court having
vacated the order of Stay, in so far as Section 25 of Act no. 33 of
2001, which was struck down by the Division Bench of this court,
it is contended that the Amendment Act of 2012 cannot be
characterized as a colourable legislation and that The legislature
had undoubted power to legislate by virtue of Entry 28 of List III
of Schedule 7 to the Constitution of India. When the Act is within
the legislative competence, no question of colorable exercise of
legislative power will arise. (Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi vs. The
State of Bombay AIR 1959 SC 459 para 45).
It is also well settled that no motives could be attributed to
the legislature. The question as to bona fides or motives will not
arise in judging the constitutionality of enactments.
(K.C.Gajapati Narayan Deo and others vs. The State of Orissa,
AIR 1953 SC 375).
Therefore, it is contended that the writ petitions deserve to
be dismissed as the questions of the law raised are unsustainable
and the pleadings are vague and bereft of particulars. And no
60
religious practice was claimed to have been affected adversely. In
fact no mention of the religious practice is found in the writ
petitions. Not even an optional or let alone essential religious
practice is pleaded in the writ petition. The petitioners have no
manner of right to seek adjudication of constitutional questions in
vacuum.
7. In the light of the above rival contentions the points that
arise for consideration are :
i) Whether the State Legislature has merely amended and further
amended the provisions of Act No. 33 of 2001, by virtue of the
2011 Amendment Act and the 2012 Amendment Act, only to re-
introduce provisions of the said Act that are held to be ultra vires ,
Articles 14, 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India - by a Division
Bench of this court. ?
ii) Whether the amended provisions by virtue of the 2011
Amendment Act and the 2012 Amendment Act, suffer from the
same anomalies and unconstitutionalities which were found in the
61
Principal Act that was struck down on that count , in Shri Sahasra
Lingeshwara.?
iii) Whether the legislative power of the State under Entry 28 of
List III of Schedule VII, to the Constitution of India, would enable
the State to amend Act No.33 of 2001, repeatedly, even during
the pendency of the appeal before the Apex Court, against the
verdict of the Division Bench of this court in Shri Sahasra
Lingeshwara Temple case.?
iv) Whether Section 25 of the Principal Act was available on the
statute book to be subjected to amendment , when the Apex Court
had specifically vacated the Order of Stay in respect of the same. ?
To consider the first and second points for consideration as
framed above, it would be necessary to briefly take stock of the
findings on which the decision in Sahasra Lingeshwara Temple
case was rendered.
62
A batch of writ petitions were filed by Hindu temples,
Managing Trustees in the management of temples, archaks and
others, from various parts of Karnataka State, questioning the
constitutional validity of the several provisions of the Karnataka
Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act,
1997 ( Act No. 33 of 2001). A learned single judge of this court
having heard the matters on merits had, by an order dated
9.9.2005, held that the Act was constitutionally valid.
The Order of the learned single judge was carried in appeal
before a Division Bench of this court. The Division Bench on
having heard extensive arguments had framed the following points
for its consideration :
“After hearing, we are of the view that the following
points require our consideration:
(1) Object/history of the Act;
(2) Scheme of the Act
(3) Constitutional validity of the Act with
Reference to Articles 14,25, and 26.
(4) Conclusions
(5) Relief.”
63
The Object of the Act, according to the Bench was two fold
- i) to make better provision for the management of Hindu
Religious Institutions; and ii) to have a uniform law, in the light
of a long standing public demand, to provide for regulation of all
Charitable Endowments and Hindu Religious Institutions in the
State of Karnataka.
The Scheme of the Act was apparent on a plain reading of
the same. It however, was evident that it did not apply to all
Hindu religious institutions. It was limited in its application to
particular religious institutions.
As regards the Constitutional validity of the Act with
reference to Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India,
was concerned, the contention as regards the provisions of the Act
being discriminatory and arbitrary in the matter of application of
the Act is concerned, essentially the exclusion of maths etcetera,
in terms of Section 1(4) and the exclusion of Buddhists, Jains or
Sikhs in terms of Section 2(16) being in violation of Article 14 of
64
the Constitution of India- the point was examined with reference
to the following cases :
(1) Ram Krishna Dalmia and others vs. S.R.Tendolkar and
others, AIR 1958 SC 538,
(2) Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt vs. Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and
others, AIR 1980 SC 1,
(3) Dr.M.Ismail Faruqui and others vs. Union of India, AIR
1995 SC 605
(4) Shastri Yagnapurushdasji and others vs. Muldas
Bhundardas Vaishya and another, AIR 1966 SC 1119,
(5) Dr.Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath
Kunte , AIR 1966 SC 1113,
(6) Pannalal Bansilal vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR
1996 SC 1023,
(7) Bal Patil and another vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC
3172, and
65
(8) M.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2005
SC 3053.
The contention of the writ petitioners was accepted, in the
circumstance that the exclusion of maths, as being in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That the legislation was
apparently not uniform in its application.
It was also found that the Act did not apply to Hindu
religious institutions or Charitable endowments - founded and
managed by Hindu religious denominations. It was held that
Hindu religious denomination temples were no different from
other Hindu temples. The judgments in Mukundaraya Shenoy v.
State of Mysore, AIR 1960 Mys.18 and K.Eranna v. Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments, 1970(1) Mys.LJ 170 (DB),
were cited with approval, to hold that the inapplicability of the Act
to the Hindu Religious institutions run by Hindu religious
denominations, as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
66
of India. And that the State had failed in its duty to justify such
exclusion.
As regards the definition of a 'Hindu' , contained in Section
2(16) of the Act, not to include a Buddhist, Jain or a Sikh, it was
held, while drawing reference to Explanation II appended to sub-
clause (b) of Clause (2) of Article 25 of the Constitution and while
distinguishing the judgments in Mahant Moti Das v. SP Sahi, AIR
1959 SC 942; Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1638; State of Gujurat v. Shri Ambica
Mills Limited, AIR 1974 SC 1300; The Division Bench disagreed
with the learned single judge that on the principle of limits of
judicial review, discrimination in a given circumstance could not
be addressed with reference to Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
As regards the contentions regarding violation of Articles
25 and 26 of the Constitution of India is concerned - focus was
on the following provisions of the Act :
67
“Sections 3 to 8 in Chapter II deals with the powers
of the Commissioner.
Chapter III deals with the appointment of Archakas
and temple servants, emoluments, salary etc.
Common Pool Fund is created in terms of Chapter
IV. Advisory Committee is constituted in terms of Chapter
V.
Notifying institutions are referred in Chapter VII and
declared institutions are suggested in Chapter VIII.
Powers of the Commissioner are shown in Chapter
IX.”
It was found that the law was covered against the archaks in
the case of A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
AIR 1996 SC 1765. Though the said judgment had been referred
to a larger bench in a later judgment in A. Ramaswamy Dikshitulu
v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2004 ) 4 SCC 661.
In so far as the challenge to the 'Common Pool Fund', 'the
Advisory Committee' and 'Declared institutions'- was concerned,
the Division Bench had considered the law laid down by the Apex
Court with regard to the interpretation of Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India in the following decisions :
(1) Bal Patil and another vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3172,
68
(2) Dr.Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte,
AIR 1966 SC 1113,
(3) Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Madras and others vs. late
R.Sridharan by legal representatives, (1976)4 SCC 489,
(4) Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt,
AIR 1954 SC 282,
(5) Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC
388,
(6) Sri Venkataramana Devaru vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC
255
(7) Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi
and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (1997)4 SCC
606,
(8) N.Adithayan vs. Travancore Devaswom Board and others,
AIR 2002 SC 3538
(9) A.Ramaswamy Dikshitulu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh,
(2004 ) 4 SCC 661,
69
It was found with reference to the above that the founding
fathers of the Constitution had chosen to provide religious rights
in terms of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The
said rights were guaranteed to a citizen of India. The right is
subject to Article 26, which provides for a right to administer a
religious place.
In the light of the above, Chapter III was held not to be
violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
It was also found that in terms of Section 17 of Chapter IV,
a Common Pool Fund is created. And that out of contributions
made by the notified institutions at 5% of their gross annual
income after deduction of the donations made as contribution to
the temple property and amount received for specified services or
charges and the grant received from the State Government. That
the temples receive donations by way of kanike, harike, hundi
etc., depending on the name and fame of the temple, in addition to
the religious practices available at the temple. Hence it was held
70
that the gross annual income taken for the purposes calculating
the percentage was arbitrary. That the Common Pool Fund could
only be the surplus left over and not on the gross income. That if
5% of the gross annual turnover is taken away, it would not be
possible to manage the temple and meet the expenses involved.
That even the administration of the Fund was in the hands of a
Commissioner. It is held that though laudable objects are
provided in the matter of administration of the Common Pool
Fund, but a careful reading of certain purposes would show that
the said purpose seemed to be arbitrary in character.
It is in this context, the division bench has held thus:-
“It cannot be forgotten that money is taken out of
the Hindu temple. Money is poured by Hindus. It may be a
laudable object to provide to a poor institution of other
religions. But it cannot be only from the funds of Hindu
temple alone. The State has to provide such assistance as
is necessary to such institutions but there can be no
compulsion only from Hindu temple to provide assistance
to such institutions. It can be voluntary by Hindu temples,
but it cannot be compulsory, prima facie in terms of the
Act. In Section 19(1)(h) rightly, the Government has
chosen to say that the administration can be for
71
establishment and maintenance of Hindu children. But
those words are missing in Section 19(1)(i) and (j). This
Court is not for a moment suggesting that poor institutions
of other religions are not to be helped but who is to help is
the question and how to help those institutions. After all,
devotees of Hindu temples provide kanike or money to that
Hindu temple for temple purposes and it cannot be spent
for other non-Hindu causes without any relevance to the
Hindus. Though Hindu religion does not prohibit such
contribution prima facie, but still it is desirable that such
amount if spent only for Hindu Institutions. As otherwise,
there is every likelihood of the Hindu institutions asking for
assistance/ maintenance from other religious institutions
which ultimately may result in unwanted religious quarrels.
Further as regards the “Advisory Committees”, it was
opined thus:
“62. Insofar as Advisory Committee is concerned,
it is seen that it is headed by a Minister. The Committee is
only vested as advisory power in terms of Section 22 but
however what cannot be forgotten is that there is every
likelihood of political temple advise for political purposes
in the event of the Minister being a Chairman of the
Advisory Committee. Therefore, though the Chairmanship
at the hands of the Minister does not by itself be considered
to be un constitutional or illegal but still it would be a
72
desirable thing to have head of non-political persons to
avoid politics in religious institutions. “
As regards the management of “notified Institutions” being
taken over by the State, it was opined thus:-
“63. Lot of arguments are advanced with regard
to notified institutions. At this stage, we must notice that
this Act is enacted to have a uniform law for regulation of
Hindu Religious Institutions. Government certainly has
the power in terms of the Constitution to enact a law for
better temple administration. In fact, the preamble to the
Act itself would say that this Act is to make better provision
for the management and administration of Hindu Religious
Institution. There are several Muzrai temples which, as
on today are rendering fairly good service. Temples and
mutts, apart from providing religious services are also
providing several welfare measures including food, shelter
and education. If such temples are already better
managed/administered, then why should such institutions
are to be notified for the purpose of having a Committee in
terms of the Act. Merely providing some assistance by
Government to them should not be understood as a right
over the temple for the purpose of administration in terms
of Article 25 of the Constitution.
64. Article 26(b) provides for a law with regard to
regulating or restricting any political and other secular
73
activities and providing for social welfare etc. But taking
over and providing administration in respect of the
Government temples, despite their better management
certainly would be in violation of not only Article 14 but
also under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
The State Government would be well advised to take over
such temple only in the event of an adverse report after an
opportunity against that temple. Taking all temples and
administering them without any adverse order, as rightly
argued would be hit by Article 26 of the Constitution of
India.
65. But however, the power to take over the
administration in the vent of mal-administration
financial/mismanagement certainly cannot be termed as
violation of Article 26(b) of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the Government cannot in the guise of better
administration take over even the best administered
temple for the purpose of managing the temple without
justification. That would be certainly, as rightly argued,
in violation of article 26(b) of the Constitution. Therefore,
application of Section 23 in all temples without adverse
report in our view, would be in violation of Article 26(b) of
the Constitution of India.”
74
As regards the constitution of the Committee of
Management and exclusion of members of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes, it was held as follows:-
“66. The Constitution of the Committee of
management is provided under Section 25 of the Act. The
Committee consists of pradana archak or archak. At least
one member among Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe.
Of the other, at least five of whom, two are women from
among the persons in the vicinity of the temple. The 2nd
proviso to Section 25(3) would show that it would not
apply to Hindu Religious denomination. We have in the
earlier part of our judgment shown that this Court has
made no distinction between Hindu denomination and
Hindus and hence exclusion of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe from the Committee of management
insofar as Hindu Religious denomination is concerned
would be again hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. Moreover, the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe are to be a part of the Committee in the larger
interest of Hindu Community. Their exclusion in the case
of Hindu Religious denomination temples in our opinion
would be an arbitrary, unjustifiable treatment thereby
violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
67. Similarly, Section 25(4) provides for
qualification to be a member of the Committee. Section
25(4)(a) would say that a member should have faith in
75
God. It cannot be forgotten that he has to manage
temples and that therefore he should have faith in Hindu
religion as well. Similarly, Section 25(4)(d) provides for
membership only to those who have donated or contributed
for temple development. Why should a poor devotee be
excluded us ununderstandable. Similarly if a lawyer
appears for or against an institution, he is disqualified.
Therefore, from a reading of this section, what is clear to
us is that at least some of the classes would appear to be
arbitrary.”
The Division Bench had concluded thus :
“69. We have repeatedly ruled that Hindu religion
is one of the oldest religions available in India. It has the
backing of centuries old scriptures, belief etc. Those
believes, rituals, practices etc., are to be protected, unless
the same is totally opposed to any part of the Constitution
of India. Therefore, while on one hand, the religious
rights in terms of article 26 are to be protected and on the
other hand, maladministration, financial irregularities by
any religious institution has to be taken serious note of in
the larger interest of temple discipline itself. The State has
to draw a balance in maintaining temple discipline/temple
administration in terms of the Constitution of India. The
State unfortunately in the case on hand in the guise of
having a uniform law has been chosen to divide the religion
76
itself in terms of our earlier discussion. Since the very Act
is held to be discriminatory in its application, it is not
possible to severe other parts and hence the entire Act has
to be struck down as unconstitutional and we do so in the
case on hand. We also deem it proper to observe that the
intention of the Legislature seems to be a uniform law for
all Hindu Religious institutions. If that is so, as has been
done in Andhra Pradesh in terms of the Supreme Court, the
Government would be well-advised to have a religious
leaders/matadipathis/religious experts/ social reformer’s
and other experts and thereafter proceed to pass a uniform
law in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shri
Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt’s case. The Government can
also think of having different regulatory measures for
temples/mutts/Jains etc. depending upon their religious
belief etc. and of course, within the four-corners of the
Constitution. However, it is for the Legislature to decide
the religious reformative law in terms of this policy of
uniform law for Hindu religions. We would leave it to the
Legislature to take a legislative decision in terms of the
Constitution. However, we deem it proper to observe that
the Government would be doing a great service to the
Hindu society by eliminating all the evil and corrupt
practices, if at all prevailing in Hindu Institutions. That
would go a long way in Hindu temple reforms.
5. Relief:
70. We have already ruled that the Act is hit by
Articles 14 and 26 of the Constitution of India. We have
77
further ruled that it is not possible to severe them. Hence,
we deem it proper to strike down the entire act and
consequently strike down the notification as
unconstitutional. However, if any action is taken in terms
of the Act prior to the date of the order, the same are
protected and this judgment would operate prospectively
from the date of this order. “
Keeping in view the above opinion expressed by this court,
we may examine the unamended provisions in relation to the
amended provisions as brought about by the 2011 and the 2012
Amendment Acts.
Reproduced below are the provisions of the Act, which
came in for direct consideration by the Division bench of this
court in Shri Sahasra Lingeshwara case, in holding the same to
be unconstitutional, as found in their unamended form and as
amended by the 2011 and 2012 amendments, in column 1,2 and 3,
respectively, in a tabular form:
78
Section as under the
Karnataka Hindu Religious
Institutions and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1997
(Karnataka Act 33 of 2001)
Section as amended vide
Act No.27/2011
Section as amended vide
Act No.12/2012
Section 1(4) : It shall not
apply –
(i) to a mutt or a temple
attached, thereto;
(ii) to any Hindu Religious
Institution or Charitable
Endowment founded,
organized run or managed by
Hindu Religious
Denomination.
Substituted as:-
"Section 1(4) It shall not
apply to a math or temple
attached to or managed by
math."
Substituted as:-
Section 1(4): It shall apply
to, all religious institutions
or charitable endowments
notified under Section 23.
Section 53 and Chapter
VIII shall apply to all
religious institutions or
charitable endowments
other than those notified
under Section 23:
Provided that it shall not
apply to a math or temple
attached to or managed by
math.”
Section 2 clause (16):
“Hindu” does not include a
Buddhist, Jain or Sikh;
Section 2 clause (16),
substituted as under:-
“(16) “Hindu Religious
Denomination” means a
collection of Hindu
Individuals or devotees
classed together under the
same name, a Hindu religious
section or sub-
section or body or a section
thereof or the spiritual
fraternity represented by it
having a common faith,
rituals, observances,
ceremonies and mode of
worship
which is designated by a
distinctive name.”
79
Section 17: Creation of
Common Pool Fund. - It shall
be lawful for the
Commissioner to create a fund
to be called the Common Pool
Fund out of.-
a) contributions made by the
Notified Institutions at five
percentum of their gross
annual income arrived at after
deducting the following,
namely,-
i) donations made as
contribution to the capital;
ii) amounts realized by sale of
jewels or other movable or
immovable properties
belonging to the institution;
iii) amounts received for
specified services or charities
where the service or charity is
performed.
b) Grants received from the
State Government.
In Section 17 of the principal
Act,-
(i) for the word
“Commissioner” the words
“Rajya Dharmika Parishat”
shall be substituted;
(ii) for clause (a), the
following shall be substituted,
namely:-
“(a) contributions made by
the notified or declared
institutions at the following
rate:-
(1) ten percent of the net
income in respect of
institutions whose gross
annual income exceeds
rupees ten lakhs;
(2) five percent of the net
income in respect of
institutions whose gross
annual income exceed rupees
five lakhs but does not exceed
rupees ten lakhs”.
Section 19(1):
Administration of Common
Pool Fund.- 1) The
Commissioner shall
administer the Common Pool
Fund subject to the conditions
herein stated and for the
following purposes, namely.-
(a) the grant of aid to any
other religious institution
which is poor or in needy
In section 19 of the principal
Act,-
(i) in sub-section (1),-
(a) for the word
“Commissioner”, the words
“Rajya Dharmika Parishat”
shall be substituted;
80
circumstances;
(b) the grant of aid to any
religious purposes connected
with the Hindu Religion;
(c)the propagation of the
religious tenets of the
institution;
(d) the establishment and
maintenance of Veda
Patashalas, agama Patashalas
and schools for training the
archakas, and for the study of
ancient scripts and Indian
languages for that purpose;
(e) the establishment and
maintenance of a university or
college or other institution
having for its object the study
of Hindu Religion, Philosophy
or Sastras or for imparting
instructions in Hindu temple
architecture;
(f) the establishment and
maintenance of educational
institutions where instructions
in the Hindu religion is also
provided;
(g) promotion of temple arts
and architecture;
(h) the establishment and
maintenance of orphanages for
Hindu children;
[(i) the establishment and
for clause (i), the following
81
maintenance of asylums for
persons suffering from leprosy
or other incurable disease;
(j) the establishment and
maintenance of poor homes
for destitute, helpless and
physically disabled persons;
(k) the establishment and
maintenance of Hospitals and
Dispensaries for providing
facilities to pilgrims;
(l)any other charitable or
Hindu Religious purpose.
shall be substituted,
namely:-
“(i) payment of terminal
benefits to the Archaks and
temple servants where there
is no sufficient fund at the
credit of the institution;”
In Section 19 of the
Principal Act, in sub-
section (1), after clause (l),
the following shall be
inserted, namely.—
“(m) for establishment and
promotion of goshalas by
Hindu Religious
Institutions or any Hindu
Organisation;
(n) to meet the objects of
the Act”.
Section 20: Constitution of the
Advisory Committee.-
1) The State Government shall
constitute for the State of
Karnataka a Committee to be
called the Advisory
Committee consisting of the
following Members, namely.-
Section 20 of the principal
Act, the following shall be
substituted, namely:-
“20. Rajya Dharmika
Parishat.-
(1) The State Government
may, by notification in the
official Gazette constitute the
Rajya Dharmika Parishat
consisting of the following
82
a) the Minister in charge of
Endowments who shall be the
Chairman, ex officio;
b) the Commissioner, who
shall be Member Secretary ex
officio, and
c) such number of non-official
members not exceeding nine,
nominated by the State
Government, from among the
religious leaders drawn from
various classes of Hindu
thought, both vedic and non-
vedic, of whom atleast one
each shall be from among the
Scheduled Castes or the
Scheduled Tribes and atleast
two shall be women.
2) The term of office of the
non-official members shall be
three years, and other matters
relating to the conduct of the
affairs of the Advisory
Committee shall be such as
may be prescribed.
members, namely:-
(a) Minister in Charge of
Hindu Religious, Institutions
and
Charitable Endowments
Chairman
(b) Secretary to Government
in charge of Hindu Religious
Institutions and Charitable,
Endowments - Vice
Chairman
(c) Commissioner, Hindu
Religious Institutions and
Charitable
Endowments - Ex-officio
Secretary
(d) Members to be nominated
by Government for a period
of three years
(i) One Retired District Judge
- Member
(ii) One Agama scholar -
Member
(iii) one vedic scholar -
Member
(iv) one person belong to SC
or ST - Member
(v) one person belonging to
backward classes - Member
(vi) one woman -Member
(vii) two others - Member
(2) The members nominated
by Government under sub-
section (1), except a retired
district
Judge, shall hold office
subject to the pleasure of
Government.
In Section 20 of the
Principal Act, in sub-
section (1), in clause (d),
for the words “three
years”, the words “four
years” shall be substituted.
83
(3) The member nominated
by Government shall be a
person who has contributed to
the Hindu Religious field but
shall not be an office bearer
of any political party in any
level.
(4) In the event of any
vacancy due to death,
resignation or otherwise, the
Government may
appoint a member for the
remaining period of the term
of such member.
(5) The Rajya Dharmika
Parishat may, for the purpose
of consultation, invite any
person having experience and
specialized knowledge or
expert
in any subject to attend its
meeting and every such
person is entitled to such
allowances as may be
prescribed.
(6) The Government may
delegate any of its powers
and functions other than the
power to make rules under
the provisions of the Act to
the Rajya Dharmika Parishat.
(7) In the absence of
Chairman, the Vice Chairman
shall preside over the meeting
of the
Rajya Dharmika Parishad.
84
(8) In the absence of
nominated member the
remaining members
constitute the Rajya
Dharmika Parishat.
(9) All the correspondence in
respect of or to the Rajya
Dharmika Parishat shall be
made by
or to the Secretary, Rajya
Dharmika Parishat including
the power to sue or be sued.
Section 22:
Functions of the Advisory
Committee.- It shall be the
function of the Advisory
Committee.-
a) to tender advise to the
Committees of Management
in case of disputes relating to-
i) observance of religious
practices;
ii) any other matter that may
be prescribed;
b) to approve proposals for
adoption of a Hindu Religious
Institution or Charitable
Endowment, whose annual
income is not more than five
thousand rupees, by a larger
Hindu Religious Institution,
Charitable Endowment or
Trust; and
c) to perform such other
Section 22 of the Principal
Act shall be omitted
85
functions as the State
Government may from time to
time specify.
Section 23 Notified
Institutions: The State
Government shall as soon as
may be after the
commencement of this Act
publish by notification in
respect of each revenue
district, a list of;
(a): all Charitable Institutions
and Hindu Religious
Institutions which on the date
of commencement of this Act
are in the sole charge of the
State Government or for the
benefit of which –
i) any monthly or annual
grant in perpetuity is made
from public revenues; or
ii) tasdik allowance under
section 19 of Mysore
Religious and Charitable
Inams Abolition Act, 1955 is
paid;
Section 23(e) All Hindu
Religious Institutions
registered under the Bombay
Public Trust Act, 1950, which
are in receipt of any monthly
or annual grant from public
revenues or any amount under
the Karnataka Certain Inams
(Abolition)Act, 1977;
In section 23 of the principal
Act,-
Clause (a), after the words
“State Government” the
words “under the
provisions of Mysore
Religious and Charitable
Institutions Act, 1927” shall
be inserted;
(ii) for clause (e), the
following shall be
substituted, namely:-
“(e) All Hindu Religious
Institutions registered under
the Bombay Public Trust Act,
1950;
(ee) All Hindu Religious
Institutions which are in
86
receipt of any monthly or
annual grant from public
revenue or any amount under
the Karnataka Certain Inams
(Abolition) Act, 1977.”
Section 24: Controlling
Authorities: 1) The
Commissioner shall be the
Chief Controlling Authority in
respect of all matters
connected with notified
institutions and he shall
perform such duties and
exercise such powers of
superintendence and control as
the State Government may by
rules impose or as the case
may be confer on him in
respect of all or any class of
notified institutions.
2) The Deputy Commissioner
shall subject to such terms and
conditions as may be
prescribed, be the immediate
controlling authority in respect
of notified institutions within
his jurisdiction.
3) The Assistant
Commissioner shall subject to
the authority of the Deputy
Commissioner perform such
duties and exercise such
powers as may be prescribed.
In section 24 of the principal
Act, in sub-section (1), for the
words “the Commissioner
shall be the Chief Controlling
Authority”, the words
“subject to the powers
and jurisdiction of the Rajya
Dharmika Parishat the
Commissioner shall be the
Chief Controlling
Authority” shall be
substituted.
After section 24 of the
principal Act, the following
shall be
inserted, namely:-
87
“24A. Appointment of
Executive Officer and term of
office.-
(1) The State Government or
the Commissioner as the case
may be, may appoint any
officer to be the Executive
Officer to a
notified institution or to a
group of notified institutions.
(2) The cadre of the
Executive Officer to be
appointed to the notified
institution may be, based
on the income of such
institution.
(3) The executive Officer
shall hold office for such term
as may be fixed by the State
Government and he shall
exercise such power and
perform such duties as may
be prescribed.
(4) The executive Officer
shall be deemed to
be a public servant within the
meaning of Section 21 of the
Indian Penal Code 1860.
Section 25: Constitution of
the Committee of
Management – (1) Subject to
any general or special order of
the State Government there
shall be constituted by the
prescribed authority a
committee of management
In Section 25 of the principal
Act,-
(i) for sub-section (1), the
following shall be
substituted, namely:-
“(1) There shall be
constituted by Rajya
Dharmika Parishat or Zilla
Section 25 of the Principal
Act shall be omitted and
after Section 25 so
omitted, the following
shall be inserted,
namely.—
“25. Constitution of the
88
consisting of nine members in
respect of one or more notified
institutions and different
authorities may be prescribed
in respect of different class or
classes of notified institutions.
(2)(a) The prescribed authority
shall while constituting the
Committee of Management
under sub-section (1) have
due regard to the religious
denomination to which the
institution or any section
thereof belongs.
(b) The procedure for
appointment of members to
the Committee of
Management, verification of
antecedents and other matters
shall be such as may be
prescribed.
(c) No person shall be eligible
to be appointed as a member
in more than one Committee
or Management, at one time.
Dharmika parishat a
committee of Management
consisting of nine members:
Provided that the committee
of management in respect of
notified institutions belonging
to religious denomination be
constituted by themselves
according to the usage and
practice prevailing therein as
on the date of commencement
of the Karnataka Hindu
religious
institutions and Charitable
endowments
Amendment)Act, 2011 and
the same shall be recognized
by the Rajya Dharmika
Parishat or the Zilla
Dharmika Parishat as the case
may be:
Provided further that every
Committee of Management or
Pancha Committee or
Dharmadarshi Committee or
Non-hereditary Trustees
constituted or appointed
under the repealed Acts who
were lawfully holding office
shall cease to hold office
from the date of the
commencement of the
Karnataka Hindu Religious
Institutions and Charitable
Endowments
(Amendment) Act, 2011.”
Committee of
Management.—
(1) There shall be
constituted, in respect of
one or more notified
institutions by the Rajya
Dharmika Parishat, if the
gross annual income of the
notified institutions
exceeds rupees twenty five
lakhs and the Zilla
Dharmika Parishat if the
annual income does not
exceed rupees twenty five
lakhs, a committee of
Management consisting of
not more than nine
members
from among the devotees
and followers of Hindu
Religious Institutions and
beneficiaries of the
charitable
institutions and it shall
consist of,-
(i) in the case of a temple
the Pradhan Archak or
Archak;
(ii) at least one among the
Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes;
(iii) two women;
(iv) at least one from
among the persons living
in the locality where the
institution situated:
Provided that in case of
composite institution
members from both Hindu
and other religion may be
89
appointed:
Provided further that the
Committee of
Management in respect of
notified institution be
constituted
according to the usage and
practice prevailing therein:
Provided also that every
committee of Management
or Pancha Committee or
Dharmadarshi
Committee or non
hereditary trustees
constituted or appointed
under the repealed Acts
who were lawfully
holding office shall cease
to hold such office from
the date of commencement
of the Karnataka Hindu
Religious and Charitable
Endowment (Second
Amendment) Act, 2011.
(2) (a) The Rajya
Dharmika Parishat and
Zilla Dharmika Parishat,
while constituting the
Committee of
Management under sub-
section (1), shall have due
regard to the religious
denomination to
which the institution or
any section thereof
belongs.
(b) The procedure for the
constitution of Committee
90
(3) The prescribed authority
shall constitute the Committee
of Management from among
the devotees, donors and
followers of the Hindu
Religious Institutions or as
the case may be, the endowers
and the beneficiaries of the
Charitable Endowment in
such manner that it consists
of –
(i) in the case of a temple the
Pradhana Archaka or
Archaka;
(ii) atleast one member from
among the Scheduled Castes
or the Scheduled Tribes; and
in sub-section (3),-
(a) for the words “prescribed
authority”, the words “the
Rajya Dharmika Parishat or
the Zilla Dharmika Parishat
as the case may be” shall be
substituted;
of Management,
verification of
antecedents and other
matter if any, of the
member shall be done in
such manner as may be
prescribed;
(c) No person shall be
eligible to become a
member in more than one
Committee of
Management at
a time;
(d) No person, who is an
office bearer of any
political party at any level,
shall become a member of
the Committee of
Management.
(3) No person shall be
qualified for being
appointed as member of
the Committee of
Management of a notified
institution unless,-
(i) he has faith in God;
(ii) he has attained the age
of twenty five years;
(iii) he possesses good
conduct and reputation and
commands respect in the
locality in which
the institution is situated.
(4) A person shall be
disqualified for being
appointed or continuing as
a member of the
91
(iii) of the others, atleast five
of whom two are women,
from among persons living in
the vicinity of the temple:
Provided that the State
Government may relax the
condition of clause (iii) in
respect of any Notified
Institution or class of such
Institutions, so however that
the representation of women
members is not affected:
Provided further that the
condition of clause (ii) shall
not apply to Institutions
belonging to Hindu Religious
Denominations or sections
thereof.
(4) No person shall be
qualified for being appointed
as a member of the
Committee of Management of
a Notified Institution unless –
(a) he has faith in God;
(b) he has attained the age of
twenty-five years;
(c) he possesses good conduct
and reputation and commands
respect in the locality in which
the Institution is situate.
(d) he has donated or
for clause (iii), the following
shall be substituted, namely:-
“(iii) of the other, two are
women and at least one
member from among the
persons living in the locality
of the temple”.
in sub-clause (iii), for the
second proviso, the following
shall be
substituted, namely:-
“Provided further that in case
of composite institution
members from
both Hindu and other religion
may be appointed”.
(iii) in sub-section (4), sub-
Committee of
Management of any
notified institution,-
(i) if he is declared as an
undischarged insolvent by
a competent court; or
(ii) if he is of unsound
mind and stands so
declared by a competent
court of law or if he is a
deaf or mute or is suffering
from virulent form of
leprosy or contagious
disease; or
(iii) if he has an interest
direct or indirect in
any subsisting lease of any
property or of any
contract made with, or is
in arrears of any kind due
by him to such institution;
or
(iv) if he is appearing as a
legal practitioner for or
against the institution; or
(v) if he has been
sentenced by a criminal
court for an offence
involving moral turpitude;
such
sentence not having been
reversed or offence
pardoned; or
(vi) if he has at any time
acted adverse to the
interest of the institution;
or
92
contributed for construction,
repairs, renovation or
development of any Hindu
Religious Institution or
Charitable Institution or for
the performance of utsavam or
any charitable cause in the
institution.
(5) A person shall be
disqualified for being
appointed or continuing as a
member of the Committee of
Management of any Notified
Institution -
(i) If he is declared as
undischarged insolvent by a
competent Court; or
(ii) if he is of unsound mind
and stands so declared by a
competent Court or if he is a
deaf or mute or is suffering
from leprosy or any virulent or
contagious disease; or
(iii) if he has an interest, direct
or indirect in any subsisting
lease of any property or of
any contract made with, or
any work being done for, the
institution, or is in arrears of
any kind due by him to such
institution; or
(iv) if he is appearing as a
legal practitioner on behalf of
or against the institution; or
(v) if he has been sentenced
by a Criminal Court for an
offence involving moral
turpitude, such sentence not
having been reversed or
offence pardoned;
(vi) if he has at any time
clause (d) shall be omitted.
(vii) if he is an office
holder other than Archaka
or a servant attached to or
a person in receipt of
any emolument or
perquisite from such
institution; or
(viii) if he is addicted to
intoxication, liquor or
drugs; or
(ix) if he is not a Hindu, or
having been a Hindu has
converted to any other
religion.
(5) If a member of the
committee of management
is or becomes subject to
any disqualification
under sub-section (4), he
shall automatically cease
to be such member.
(6) If any question arises
whether a member is
or has become subject to
any disqualification
under sub-section (4), the
Dharmika Parishat may
either suo-moto or on a
report made to it and after
giving an opportunity, of
being heard to the person
concerned decide the
question."
93
conducted adverse to the
interests of the institution;
(vii) if he is an office-holder
other than Archaka, or a
servant attached to or a person
in receipt of any emolument or
perquisite from such
institution; or
(viii) if he is addicted to
intoxication, liquor or drugs;
or
(ix) if he is not a Hindu; or
having been a Hindu has
converted to any other
religion.
(6) If a member of the
Committee is, or becomes
subject to any disqualification
under sub-section (5) he shall
automatically ceased to be
such member.
(7) If any question arises
whether a member is or has
become subject to any
disqualification under sub-
section (5) the prescribed
authority may either suo motu
or on a report made to it and,
after giving an opportunity of
being heard to the person
concerned, decide that
question.
After section 25 of principal
Act the following shall be
inserted, namely:-
“25A. Provision relating to
institution managed by
Hereditary Trustee.-
94
(1) No committee of
management shall be
constituted in respect of
the notified institutions
managed exclusively by
hereditary trustees. The
power of management shall
vest in such hereditary
trustee.
(2) If there is no legal heir to
succeed the office of the
hereditary trustee, the Rajya
Dharmika
Parishat or the Zilla
Dharmika Parishat, as the
case may be, shall constitute
the committee of
management as provided
under section 25.
(3) When a temporary
vacancy occurs in the office
of a hereditary trustee and if
there is a
dispute with regard to right of
succession to such office and
such vacancy cannot be filled
up immediately or when a
successor is a minor and has
no guardian fit and willing to
act or there is a
dispute regard to as to who is
entitled to succeed such
office, the Rajya Dharmika
Parishat may
appoint a fit person to
discharge functions of the
office of hereditary trustee
until the disability ceases
or another successor succeeds
95
to such office:
Provided that in making any
appointment, the Rajya
Dharmika Parishat shall have
due regard
to the claims of members of
the said family, if any entitled
to the succession.
25B. Power of the Deputy
Commissioner to settle
scheme for the administration
of
Charitable endowments and
to decide certain other
disputes.-
(1) When the Deputy
Commissioner has reason to
believe that in the interest of
the proper administration of
Charitable endowments
or a endowment attached to
any notified institution or
declared institution, a scheme
shall be settled for such
endowment or when not less
than five persons having
interest make an
application in writing stating
that in the interest of the
proper administration of the
endowment, a scheme shall
be settled for it, the Deputy
Commissioner shall on
consultation with the Trustee
or the Committee of
Management or the persons
having interest and if, after
such consultation he is
96
satisfied that is it necessary or
desirable to do so, he shall by
order, settle a scheme of
administration of such
Charitable endowment or
endowment.
(2) The scheme settled under
this section for the
administration of Charitable
endowments
may include certain provision
for,-
(i) constitution of a body for
the purpose of assisting in the
administration of such
Charitable endowments;
(ii) the method of selection of
members for such committee
from the persons having
interest in such endowments;
(iii) defining the powers and
duties of the committee;
(3) The Deputy
Commissioner may determine
the properties of the
endowment and the list of
such properties shall be
appended to the scheme as a
schedule.
(4) The Deputy
Commissioner may at
anytime after consulting
trustees or committee by
order modify or cancel any
scheme in respect of
97
an endowment which is in
force and settled under sub-
section (1) or any scheme in
force settled or modified by
any courts or any earlier
enactments:
Provided that such
cancellation or modification
of a scheme in force settled or
modified earlier shall be
made only subject to such
conditions and restrictions as
may be imposed by the
Deputy
Commissioner.
(5) If the Deputy
Commissioner is satisfied that
any such scheme referred to
in sub-section
(1) is inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act and
rules made thereunder he
may, at anytime modify it in
such a manner as may be
necessary to bring it into
conformity with the
provisions of this Act and
rules made there under.
(6) Whenever any question
arises as to,-
(i) whether a particular
property is the property of a
notified institution or
declared institution under the
Act; or
(ii) whether any property or
money is either a religious
98
endowment or specific
endowment; or
(iii) whether any Archak or
temple servant holds or held
an office in any notified
institution or declared
institution on the basis of a
hereditary right; or
(iv) whether any person is
entitled by custom or
otherwise to any honour,
emolument or perquisite in
any religious institution; and
what is the existing usage of a
notified or declared
institution; or
(v) whether any institution or
endowment is wholly or
partly of a religious or of
secular character and whether
any property
or money has been given
wholly or partly for religious
or secular purpose; or
(vi) where any property or
money has been given for the
support of an institution
which is partly of a religious
and partly of a secular
character or the
performance of any service or
charity connected with such
an institution or the
performance of a charity
which is partly of a religious
and partly of a secular
character
99
or where any property or
money given is appropriated
partly to religious and partly
to secular purposes, as to
what portion of such property
or money shall be allocated to
religious purpose; or
(vii) to accord sanction of
dittam and seva list in respect
of notified institutions having
gross annual income of
rupees one lakh and above
but below Rupees ten lakhs;
or
(viii) any dispute between the
servant of a notified
institution and the committee
of management. - the Deputy
Commissioner after hearing
the parties concerned shall by
order decide it.
(7) Any person aggrieved by
any order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner under
any of the foregoing
provisions, shall appeal
within one month of the date
of receipt of the order to the
Commissioner.
(8) The Commissioner may
after hearing the aggrieved
person and other contending
parties,
pass appropriate order in
accordance with law.”
Section 26: Term of office of
the Committee of
In section 26 of the principal
Act,-
100
Management and Election of
Chairman – (1) Subject to the
pleasure of the prescribed
authority, members shall hold
office for a term of three years
unless in the meanwhile the
Committee is dissolved or has
ceased to function.
(2) Where the Committee of
Management is constituted
under Section 25, the
members shall at the first
meeting of the Committee
elect a Chairman from among
themselves.
(3) The State Government
may nominate the Executive
Officer as exofficio Secretary
of the Committee of
Management in respect of
notified institution or
institutions, without voting
rights.
(4) Notwithstanding anything
to the contrary contained in
sub-sections (1), (2) and (3)
above, where any Charitable
Institution or Hindu Religious
Institution was, immediately
before it is included in the list
of Notified Institution under
Section 23, managed by the
founder of such institution or
any member of his family,
such founder and in his
absence any member of his
family shall, unless he is
otherwise disqualified under
Sub-section (1), for the words
"prescribed authority", the
words "Rajya Dharmika
Parishat or Zilla Dharmika
Parishat as the case may be"
shall be substituted;
(2) for sub-section (4), the
following shall be
substituted, namely:-
“(4) in case of notified
institutions managed by more
than one hereditary
trustee or founder trustee, the
chairman shall be elected in
accordance with such
procedure as may be
prescribed.”
In Section 26 of the
Principal Act, in sub-
section (3), after the words
“the State Government”,
the words “or the
prescribed authority” shall
be inserted.
101
Section 25, be nominated as
Chairman of the Committee of
Management of such Notified
Institution.
Section 27: Meeting of the
Committee of Management-
The Committee of
Management shall meet at
such intervals and follow such
procedure in conducting its
meetings, as may be
prescribed.
Section 28. Power to dissolve
the Committee of
Management – (1) the
prescribed authority shall
have power to dissolve a
Committee of Management if
after holding an inquiry in
accordance with sub-section
(2), it is satisfied that the
committee has, -
(a) failed to discharge the
duties or perform the
functions in accordance with
the provisions of this Act or
the rules made thereunder, or
(b) disobeyed any lawful
orders issued under the
provisions of this Act or the
rules made thereunder by the
State Government or the
Commissioner, Deputy
Commissioner or Assistant
Commissioner; or
(c)committed any malfeasance
in section 28 of the principal
Act,-
Sub-section (1),-
for the words "prescribed
Authority", the words "Rajya
Dharmika Parishat or Zilla
Dharmika Parishat as the case
may be” shall be substituted;
and
after the words "committee of
Management", the words
"including a member or
hereditary trustee" shall be
inserted;
102
or misfeasance or is guilty of
breach of trust or
misappropriation in respect of
the properties of the institution
or endowments;
(2) Where the prescribed
authority proposes to take
action under sub-section (1) it
shall frame the charge against
the Chairman and give him an
opportunity of meeting such
charge or testing the evidence
adduced against the charge
and of adducing evidence in
favour of the Committee; and
the order of dissolution shall
state every charge framed
against the Committee,
explanation offered by the
Committee and the finding on
such charge together with the
reasons therefor.
(3) Pending enquiry under
sub-section (2) the prescribed
authority may suspend the
Committee and appoint an
administrator in accordance
with Section 29.
(4) Any person aggrieved by
an order under this section
Sub-section (2),-
for the words "prescribed
Authority", the words "the
Rajya Dharmika Parishat or
the Zilla Dharmika Parishat
as the case may be" shall be
substituted; and
after the words "committee"
wherever they occur, the
words "including a member
or hereditary trustee" shall be
inserted;
(3) in sub-section (3),-
for the words "prescribed
Authority", the words "Rajya
Dharmika Parishat or Zilla
Dharmika Parishat as the case
may be" shall be substituted;
and
after the words, "committee"
the words "including a
member or hereditary trustee"
shall be inserted;
(4) sub-section (4) shall be
omitted.
103
may, within thirty days from
the date of communication of
the order appeal .-
(a) to the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal constituted under the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 10
of 1976), where the prescribed
Authority is the
Commissioner;
(b) to the Commissioner, if the
order passed is of the Deputy
Commissioner; and
(c) to the Deputy
Commissioner, if the order
passed is of the Assistant
Commissioner.
(5) The Appellate Authority
may after holding an enquiry
and so far as possible within
six months from the date of
appeal pass such order as it
deems fit, and such order shall
be final.
In Section 28 of the
Principal Act, sub-section
(5) shall be omitted.
Section 29. Appointment of
Administrator – The
prescribed authority shall
appoint an officer of the State
Government as Administrator
in place of the Committee of
Management dissolved or
suspended under sub-section
(1) or (3) of Section 28 or
after the expiry of the term of
office of the Committee under
Section 26 and till a new
Committee of Management
is constituted or for a period
of six months whichever is
In Section 29 of the principal
Act,-
(a) for the words "prescribed
Authority", the words "the
Rajya Dharmika Parishat or
the Zilla Dharmika Parishat"
shall be substituted; and
In Section 29 of the
Principal Act, after the
words
and figures “after the
expiry of the term of office
of the Committee under
Section 26”, the words “or
for any other reasons”
shall be inserted.
104
earlier.
(b) the following proviso
shall be inserted at the end,
namely:-
"Provided that for the reasons
to be recorded in writing the
Rajya Dharmika
Parishat or Zilla Dharmika
Parishat, by order extend the
said period by any further
period, not exceeding six
months at a time. So
however, the said period shall
not exceed one year in total."
Section 30 Filling up of
casual vacancies.- When a
vacancy occurs, either by
removal, resignation or
otherwise, of a member of the
Committee of Management of
a notified institution, the
prescribed authority shall,
subject to the provisions of
section 25 fill up the vacancy
by appointing a new member
to the Committee. Such
member of the Committee
appointed shall hold office
only so long as a member in
whose place he is appointed
would have been entitled to
hold office in the vacancy had
not occurred.
In Section 30 of the principal
Act, for the words
“prescribed
authority”, the words “the
Rajya Dharmika Parishat or
the Zilla Dharmika Parishat
as the case may
be” shall be substituted.
Section 42: Declared
Institutions:- The State
Government may, where it is
satisfied on a report of the
Commissioner under Section
43 or otherwise that any
Hindu Religious Institution,
105
whether or not governed by a
settled scheme, is being
mismanaged, declare such
institution to be subject to the
regulation of this chapter.
Provided no such
declaration shall be made
without following the
procedure hereinafter
specified.
Section 43: Notice to show
cause:- 1) Where the
Commissioner has reason to
believe that a Hindu Religious
Institution whether or not
governed by a settled scheme
is being mismanaged and he is
satisfied that in the interest of
its administration, it is
necessary to take proceedings
under this chapter, he may, by
notice published in the
prescribed manner, call upon
the Manager and all other
persons having interest, to
show cause why such
institution should not be
declared to be subject to the
provisions of this Chapter.
2) Such notice shall state the
reasons for the action
proposed and specify a
reasonable time, not being less
than one month from the date
of issue of the notice, for
showing such cause.
3) The Manager or any
person having interest may
106
thereupon prefer his
objections, if any, to the issue
of a declaration under this
chapter.
4) Such objections shall be
in writing and shall reach the
Commissioner before the
expiry of the time specified in
the notice aforesaid or within
such further time not
exceeding forty five days on
the whole as may be extended
by the Commissioner.
5) Where no objections are
received within the time so
specified or extended, the
State Government may, on
receipt of a report from the
Commissioner to that effect,
by a notification published in
the official Gazette declare
such Hindu Religious
Institution to be subject to the
provisions of this Chapter.
6) Where objections are
received within the time so
specified or extended, the
Commissioner may authorize
any officer subordinate to him
to hold an enquiry into the
objections in the manner
prescribed who shall after
giving the Manger or any
person having interest an
opportunity of being heard
submit his enquiry report to
the Commissioner as to
whether or not the institution
107
should be declared to be
subject to the provisions of
this chapter.
7) After considering the
enquiry report referred to in
sub-section (6), if the
Commissioner decides that the
Institution should be declared
as aforesaid, he shall make a
report to that effect to the
State Government, which
may, by notification declare
such Hindu religious
Institution to be subject to the
provisions of this Chapter.
8) Every Notification issued
under sub-section (5) or (7)
shall remain in force for such
period as may be specified
therein and which may be
extended further, so however
that the total period shall not
exceed five years from the
date of the first notification, or
till a new Committee of
Management is formed to the
satisfaction of the State
Government whichever is
earlier.
9) Where a new Committee
is formed to the satisfaction of
the State Government, the
State Government may on its
own or on the report of the
Commissioner direct the
Executive Officer appointed
for the institution to handover
the management of the
108
Institution to the new
committee of Management.
Section 44: Effect of
Declaration: Where any Hindu
Religious Institution is
declared under Section 42, the
Committee of Management of
the Institution by whatever
name called shall from the
date of such declaration stand
dissolved and its
administration shall vest in the
State Government to be
regulated in the manner
hereinafter provided.
Section 45: Appointment of
Salaried Executive Officer:-
For every Institution declared
under this Chapter, the
Commissioner shall, as soon
as may be after the declaration
is issued appoint a salaried
Executive Officer for the
proper administration of the
Institution.
Section 46: Term of office and
duties of Executive Officer:-
1) The Executive Officer shall
hold office for such term as
may be fixed by the
Commissioner and he shall
exercise such power and
perform such duties as are
assigned to him by the
Commissioner:
Provided that only such
powers and duties as relate to
109
the administration of the
properties of the religious
institution shall be assigned to
the Executive Officer.
2) The Executive Officer
shall be deemed to be a public
servant within the meaning of
section 21 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
Section 47: Action against
Executive Officer:- The
Commissioner, may for good
and sufficient cause, suspend
an executive officer or initiate
disciplinary proceedings
against him for any
misconduct in accordance
with the Karnataka Civil
Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal Rules)
1957.
Section 48: Application of the
Provisions of Chapters VI and
VII in certain cases:-
Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (8) of
section 43, the State
Government may while
passing orders under sub-
section (7) or during currency
of the notification issued
under sub-section (5) or (7)
thereof declare, for reasons to
be recorded in writing, that in
respect of any Declared
Institution, the provisions of
Chapter VI and VII shall
apply as if the institution is a
110
notified institution under
section 23:
Provided that no such
declaration shall be made
except after further notice is
issued for the purpose, to the
Institution concerned.
Section 49: Power of
Commissioner to issue
directions:- 1) Without
prejudice to the generality of
powers granted under Section
3 and subject to other
provisions of this Act, the
Commissioner shall have
power to issue general or
special directions to the
Chairman or Executive
Officer or any person
connected with the
Management of a Notified
Institution or a Declared
Institution to ensure that the
Institution is properly
administered and the income
thereof is properly accounted
for or duly appropriated and
applied towards the objects
and purposes of the institution
and the Commissioner may
also give appropriate
directions to such person if he
finds that any property of the
Institution is in danger of
being wasted, damaged,
alienated or wrongfully sold,
removed or disposed off.
2) It shall be the duty of
111
every person to whom such
directions are issued to
comply with the directions
issued under sub-section (1).
It may be noticed that the Division bench of this court has
categorically opined that the exclusion of maths, from the purview
of the Act, is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. The object of the Act was to bring in a uniform law for all
Hindu religious institutions in the State and hence the exclusion
of a math, and temples managed by maths, from the purview of
the Act being discriminatory was emphasized. It is however, seen
that in both Act no.27/2011 or Act no.13 of 2012, maths and
temples attached to or managed by maths, remain excluded from
the purview of the Act.
And in spite of an assurance by the State in its appeal
pending before the Supreme Court, as to a proposal to bring
maths and temples managed by maths, within the purview of the
Act, the State has religiously ensured that the same are kept out of
112
the purview of the Act by repeated amendments as is seen from
the tenor of Section 1( 4), as it originally stood and as amended .
The non - application of the Act to a Hindu Religious
institution or charitable endowment founded, organized, run or
managed by Hindu religious denomination was held to be contrary
to the settled position, by the judgment of the Division Bench. It
was held that all sections of Hindus constitute a religious
denomination within the meaning of Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India and that in matters concerning temple
administration, the State could not discriminate between temples
managed by a Hindu religious denomination vis-a-vis, a temple
managed by a Hindu religious institution.
Though the State has now chosen to delete the offending
clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of Section 1 of Act 33 of 2001, which
expressly indicated the non- application of the Act to any Hindu
Religious Institution or Charitable Endowment managed by a
Hindu Religious Denomination,- the State has chosen to define a
Hindu Religious Denomination under Section 2(16) of Act no. 3
113
of 2012, by adopting the definition of a religious denomination as
contained in the Oxford Dictionary, without indicating whether
the Act would apply to such a denomination or not. According to
the contention put forth by Shri M.N.Rao, there are several
denominations within the fold of the Hindu religion and this,
according to him is stated by the Apex court in the Shirur Math
case, AIR 1954 SC 282. And by implication it is sought to be
contended that an institution managed by a Hindu Religious
Denomination is distinct and different from an institution
managed by a Hindu Religious institution.
In the said case referred to above, however, it is seen that
the court was answering a contention that a math does not come
within the description of a religious denomination as provided for
in Article 26 of the Constitution of India and even if it does, what
cannot be interfered with was its right to manage its own affairs in
matters of religion. The same is answered thus by the Apex
Court:
114
“15. As regards Article 26, the first question is,
what is the precise meaning or connotation of the
expression "religious denomination" and whether a Math
could come within this expression. The word
"denomination" has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary
to mean "a collection of individuals classed together under
same name : a religious sect or body having a common
faith and organisation and designated by a distinctive
name." It is well know that the practice of setting up Maths
as centers of theological teaching was started by Shri
Sankaracharya and was followed by various teachers since
then. After Sankara, came a galaxy of religious teachers
and philosophers who founded the different sects and sub-
sects of the Hindu religion that we find in India at the
present day. Each one of such sects or sub-sects can
certainly be called a religious denomination, as it is
designated by a distinctive name, - in many cases it is the
name of the founder, - and has a common faith and
common spiritual organization. The followers of
Ramanuja, who are known by the name of Shri Vaishnabas,
undoubtedly constitute a religious denomination; and so do
the followers of Madhwacharya and other religious
teachers. It is a fact well established by tradition that the
Udupi Maths were founded by Madhwacharya himself and
the trustees and the beneficiaries of these Maths profess to
be followers of that teacher. The High Court has found that
the Math in question is in charge of the Sivalli Brahmins
who constitute a section of the followers of Madhwacharya.
115
As Article 26 contemplates not merely a religious
denomination but also a section thereof, the Math or the
spiritual fraternity represented by it can legitimately come
within the purview of this Article.
It is therefore not evident that a Hindu Religious
denomination would not fall with in the fold of a Hindu Religious
institution. To wit , a math would be a Hindu religious institution
, albeit that a spiritual fraternity represented by it is regarded as a
Hindu religious denomination, as in the above case. The assertion
that Hindus are not a religious denomination is untenable.
Further, the said sub-section (16) of Section 2, seeks to
substitute the same. It originally read as follows :
" Section 2(16): "Hindu" does not include a Buddhist,
Jain or Sikh; "
It was held by the Division Bench that such exclusion of
Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs , from the definition of the expression
"Hindu",suffers from violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India
116
There is no indication of including Buddhists, Jains or
Sikhs under the definition of "Hindus", by the subsequent
amendments.
In so far as the creation of a Common Pool Fund and the
contributions to be compulsorily made from the same at a
prescribed percentage for the purposes which were spelt out, the
Division Bench has held that though the Hindu religion does not
prohibit such contribution, it would still be desirable that such
amount is spent exclusively for the Hindu institutions. Except for
minor tinkering which does not address the concern of this Court,
as expressed therein, there are no significant changes in the
provision.
The Division Bench has held that though the Chairmanship
of the Advisory Committee, in terms of Section 20 of the Act,
could not by itself be unconstitutional or illegal it was expressed
that it would be desirable to have a head without any political
affiliations to avoid politics in religious institutions. But there is
no change in the constitution of the Committee in that regard.
117
As regards Notified institutions contemplated under the Act,
the view expressed by the Division bench was to the effect that
though the State government would have the power to enact a law
for the better administration of temples. When it is apparent that
there are several temples and institutions which, apart from
providing religious services, were also providing laudable social
welfare measures, and were being managed in an efficient and
transparent manner - the wisdom of notifying such institutions to
be governed by a Committee was held to be inexplicable. It was
held to be violative of Article 14 and Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India. However, there is no change to the said
scheme.
As regards the constitution of the Committee of
Management as provided under Section 25, the Division bench
has noticed that the second proviso to Section 25(3) of the
unamended Act showed that it did not apply to Hindu Religious
Denominations, or in other words members of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes were excluded from the membership
118
of the Committee of management of a Hindu Religious
Denomination. This was held to be violative of Article 14 of the
constitution of India. And that there was no distinction between a
Hindu denomination and Hindus. Act no.13 of 2012, which omits
Section 25 and inserts a new Section 25, suffers from the same
infirmity. In that, the second proviso to Sub- section (1) of
Section 25 provides thus :
"Provided further that the Committee of
Management in respect of notified institution be
constituted according to the usage and practice prevailing
therein"
By reference to an alleged usage or practice in a notified
institution a member of a Scheduled caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
can be indefinitely denied membership.
And more particularly, it is categorically spelt out thus in
Section 2 (a) of Section 25, thus :
“The Rajya Dharmika Parishat and Zilla
Dharmika Parishat, while constituting the Committee
of Management under sub-section (1), shall have due
119
regard to the religious denomination to which the
institution or any section thereof belongs.”
Hence, the same mischief is perpetrated in denying
membership to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes , if the usages and practices of an institution managed by a
Hindu Religious Denomination - did not permit such persons from
becoming members of their committee of management.
In the light of the above picture that emerges, in the
amended provisions of the Act, being more or less of the same
tenor as were the unamended provisions - which were held to be
unconstitutional by this Court in Shri Shasara Lingeshwara, point
nos.1 & iii are answered in the affirmative.
In so far as points nos.(iii) and (iv) are concerned, if the
law passed by a Legislature is struck down by the Courts as
being invalid for one or the other reason, it would be competent
for the appropriate Legislature to cure the said infirmity and pass
a validating law so as to make the provisions of the said earlier
law effective from the date when it was passed. (See: Rai
120
Ramakrishna vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1667). The
Legislature can pass a retrospectively validating action taken
under a law which was void because it contravened fundamental
rights. If the legislature can by retrospective legislation, cure the
invalidity of action taken in pursuance of laws which are void for
want of legislative competence and can validate such action by
appropriate provisions, the same power can be effectively
exercised by the Legislature for validating action taken under laws
which are void for the reason that they contravened fundamental
rights. (See: West Ramnad Electric Distributioon Co. Ltd. vs.
State of Madras, AIR 1962 SC 1753). It was held that Legislature
can change the basis on which a decision is given by the Court,
and thus change the law in general, which will affect a class of
persons and events at large. The Legislature can render judicial
decisions ineffective by enacting a valid law on the topic within
its legislative field fundamentally altering or changing its
character retrospectively. The changed or altered conditions
should be such that the previous decision would not have been
121
rendered by the Court; if those conditions had existed at the time
of declaring the law as invalid. It is also empowered to give effect
to retrospective legislation with a deeming date or with effect
from a particular date. (See: Indian Aluminium Company vs. State
of Kerala, AIR 1996 SC 1431).
And it is also laid down by the Apex court in Grand
Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel and Towers Employees and Workers
Union vs. Srinivasa Resorts Limited and others, (2009) 5 SCC
342, in a situation where in circumstances that a statute is held to
be unconstitutional, the offending provisions are sought to be
reintroduced with cosmetic changes, as in the present case on
hand, thus:
“62. Section 40(3) is clearly comparable to
Section 47(3) and also Section 47(4), as the last part
of that section is identical with the wording in
Section 47(4). The only difference which we find is
that instead of the word “gratuity”, the terminology
of “service compensation” is substituted. In our
opinion, the High Court was right in opining that a
mere cosmetic amendment could not have been made
122
by way of introduction of Sections 47(3) and 47(4). It
was tried to be argued before us that in the present
1988 Act, the mischief pointed out by the High Court
in the earlier Section 40 (3) of the 1966 Act has been
remedied. We are unable to agree with such an
argument. We do not see as to how and in what
manner, the mischief has been remedied.
xxx
64. The High Court also noted that the
provisions of Sections 47(3) and 47(4) were nothing,
but a cosmetic amendment to the earlier Section
40(3). It is, therefore, clear that no attempt has been
made, whatsoever, to point out (sic remedy) the
mischief found by the High Court in Section 40(3) of
the 1966 Act.
xxx
70. The High Court found that instead of
remedying the defects point out in Suryapet Coop.
Mktg. Society Ltd. v. Munsif Magistrate, (1972) 2 An
LT 163 a cosmetic change was made by raising the
period of six months to one year. We are, therefore,
unable to accept the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the High Court
proceeded on to decide the constitutionality on the
basis of a comparison. We do not, therefore, see
how the aforementioned judgment in State of M.P. v.
G.C.Mandawar, AIR 1954 SC 493, can be of any
application and help to the present case.”
123
Thus, it can be safely said that not only was the amendment,
brought about by Act no.13 of 2012, bad in law for the above
reason but also for the reason that the Supreme court having
granted an interim Order of Stay of the judgment of the Division
bench of this court by an Order dated 2.4.2007 and again having
modified the same, thereby vacating the interim order in so far as
Section 25 of the Act, was concerned. The Section could not have
been reintroduced in its avatar as contained in Act no.27 of 2011,
which came into force with effect from 04.05.2011 or as contained
in Act no.13 of 2012, which came into force with effect from
05.03.2012, at least in so far as Section 25 of the Act was
concerned.
It is noticed that the specific challenge to Act no.13 of 2012
is only in the form of an application filed in the petition in WP
64805-868, seeking to raise an additional prayer - to declare and
strike down the said Act as void and inoperative- on the footing
that the very grounds on which the 2011 Amendment Act is
124
challenged in the batch of petitions would equally apply to the
said Act.
The said application is formally allowed, as it is found by us
that the above said broad assertion is indeed acceptable, as already
found by us herinabove.
The fact that the Apex Court has expressed in its order
dated 24.3.2015 that the Act would be in force , till the disposal of
the appeal pending before it - is not with reference to the 2011 or
the 2012 Amendment Acts, but is with reference to Act 33 of
2001. Since we are in agreement with the views expressed by the
Division Bench of this court in Shri Sahasra Lingeshwara case,
our work was cut out to only address whether the legislative
exercise by the State to repeatedly amend the Act has only
resulted in reiterating the very provisions which were held to be
unconstitutional, the need for elaborate pleadings in that regard
was hardly necessary. There is essentially little difference
between the unamended Act and the amended Acts in so far as the
offending provisions are concerned. The incidental contention
125
that sub- Section 2(d) of Section 25 excludes office-bearers of
political parties and hence the Section is completely altered, for
instance, is not at all a convincing claim. To introduce and thrust
a political 'big-wig' on a cash rich and influential religious
institution could be achieved with ease by calling upon him to
resign as an office bearer, temporarily.
In so far as the other contentions on merits are concerned,
given the limited challenge to the amendment Acts being on the
limited aspect as aforesaid, it would be unnecessary to address the
same on merits. Accordingly, the writ petition in WP 65648-
680/2011 is allowed along with the application for amendment,
seeking an amendment in the main prayer, to include a challenge
to Act no. 13 of 2012.
Accordingly, it is declared that the Karnataka Religious
Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment ) Act, 2011
and the Karnataka Religious Institutions and Charitable
Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2012, as being discriminatory,
violative of Constitutional rights and are accordingly struck down
126
in entirety. The other reliefs sought for by the petitioner are
irrelevant.
In the result, the petitions in WP 64805-64868/2011,
WP 72157/2012, WP 80796-80822/2013 and WP 65539/2012 are
disposed of in the light of the decision in WP 65648- 680/2011.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
nv*
top related