The Supreme Court in the case Madapathi Nagendrappa vs. State of Telangana observed and has issued the notice in the petition moved wherein challenging the constitutional validity of the Telangana Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1987.
In the present case, the petition was preferred on behalf of the Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple priests, known as the Machileshwarnath Temple, against the State of Telangana.
The petition filed through counsel, Advocate-On-Record Rashi Bansal has also assailed orders passed by the commissioner of endowments appointing an Executive Officer for the temple.
The bench comprising of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti in the case observed and has issued the notice.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Vibha Dutta Makhikja appearing for the petitioner claimed that, through these impugned orders, the Telangana Government is attempting to take over the said Temple and remove the Petitioners.
It has also been argued before the court that the mentioned Act and the challenged order are ultra-vires, inter-alia, Article 14, the Equality before law, Article 25, Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion and Article 26, Freedom to manage the religious affairs.
Therefore, the Act has been challenged which being on the basis that it gives the government unfettered power, as it can replace the management of any temple without any reason.
The petition stated that under the said Act, the Respondent Government has unfettered powers to supersede the administration of any temple and to replace the management of any temple with a board of trustees of their choice, run by an Executive Officer, under the directions of the Respondent Government. Thus, the said power can be exercised under the Act, without the need for any cause, or reason, in a completely arbitrary fashion.
The petition also cited the case Pannalal Bansilal Pittie v State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein to put forth the argument that it is not the job of officers of a secular government to run temples. Thus, it has also averred that the management and administration of a temple are an essential part of the right to religion. Further, it has been submitted before the court that the Government can only take over the management to cure financial maladministration.
The court observed that the management of the said temple has to be returned.
The court also referred to the case Subramanian Swamy v State of Tamil Nadu, wherein the Respondent-Government is only empowered to take over the management and administration of a temple in order to cure financial maladministration, and then the management of the said temple is to be returned to the person concerned. The court in the case held that supersession of management indefinitely would tantamount to violation of proprietary and fundamental rights.
In the said case, the petition has now been filed contending that the Government has misused the provisions of this Act and appointed an Executive Officer to take charge of the Temple without prescribing any cause and in perpetuity.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Vibha Dutta Makhikja appeared for the petitioner.