ASSIDUOUS JEOPARDIZING OF EXISTENCE OF VEDIC HINDU TEMPLES AND

HINDUISM

INTRODUCTION

India is the land of different religions some of them are Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and
Jainism, at the same time the country is home to several indigenous faiths tribal religions which
have been affected by other major religion but still have their root growing in India. The
diversity in religious groups makes India unique and this unity and diversity “is brought out
clearly in the Indian Census”. Among all religions, Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world.
It is world’s third largest religion and the dominant one after Christianity and Islam. In India,
Hindus form about 84 per cent of the total population. Hinduism is also recognized as the
everlasting religion.

Apart from this, a devout Hindu worships his favorite deities in the temples, it is a place
creating reverence that god resides there or an edifice dedicated to service of god[1] and used
as of right by Hindu Community or any section thereof as a place of religious worship.[2]

However, the history of the existence of Hinduism and Hindu temples is very grind. There’s a
wealth of evidence that shows that a lot of temples were indeed destroyed from the time Islam
entered into India and till present. Not only this, Hindu institutions and Hinduism in India is
still targeted by a combination of vote bank politics, politicians, and businessmen. Particularly
alarming is the destruction of Hindu institutions and the illegal mass conversions by other
religions.

However, through enacting of “The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (HRCE
Act) of 1951”,under which the state governments have appointed managers to the boards of
temples for better administration, protection, preservation of temples and the endowed
properties attached thereto, and for fulfilment of the objects with reasonable restrictions, which
do not violate the rights of religious freedom guaranteed by the constitution[3](while mosques
and churches are completely autonomous). But the present practice of government officials
under this act is having a negative impact on the future of Hindu temples and of Hinduism. The
instances of abuse of power by the government under this act can be seen through these
examples.
An 800-year-old Shiva temple in Tholur village of Namakkal district in Tamil Nadu under the
Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments department (HRCE) was demolished as a
government appointed body was razed to the ground using bulldozers in August 2016. No one
actually knows who was responsible or why this temple was demolished while the HRCE
blamed the villagers and the heritage activists blamed on the HRCE.

It is the state government and the endowments department to safeguard the temple property but
in Andhra Pradesh around ten thousands of acres of temple land are sold away leaving temples
with little economic basis. This is done without the permission of the local Hindu community.
In such a situation even the state government has turned a blind eye to such encroachments and
take over’s of temple properties.

Not only this, the Andhra Pradesh government also allowed the demolition of at least 10
temples for the construction of a golf course.

Even the world famous sacred temple at Tirumala-Tirupati is not spared. This temple collects
over Rs. 3,100 crores every year. Out of these 3,100 crores, the state government has agreed
that 85% of this is transferred to the state exchequer, much of which goes to causes that are not
connected with the Hindu community or Vedic temples.

The government also attempted to take over 5 out of 7 Tirumala hills for churches and tourism
for the profit of developing companies and other affiliates not connected with the temple. The
1000 pillar Mantapam hall was illegally demolished. Recently, in response to Sri Chinnajeeyar
Swami’s petition, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has declared the demolition illegal and
instructed the TTD management at Tirupatiton reconstruct it.

These are only a few of the instances of systematic loot by the government. Apart form this
Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees public establishment and
maintenance of religious institutions and to administer such property in accordance with
law[4], has been completely ignored toward Hindu foundations. While looting Hindu
institutions and demolition of them, the Governments subsidizes the “Hajj” pilgrimage for the
Muslims to the tune of Rs. 380 crores annually (including subsidy to airlines), and provides
1000 crores per year for the salary of Imams, and provides funds to churches.

And as a result of this, abruptly the (HRCE Act) of 1951 is not constitutional valid or reasonable
according to constitutional mandates because the underlying purpose of this act is not achieved
as seen above and it is violative of Article 14, 25, 26 of The Indian Constitution.
Article 14 being the basic feature of the constitution,[5] bars discrimination and prohibits
discriminatory laws. Article 14 is a bulwark against any arbitrary and discriminatory state
action.[6]

Supreme court in the case of Moseb Kaba chowdhary & Anr. v. State of West Bengal[7] said
that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by Substantive Law but also by

LAW OF PROCEDURE.

The Court also held that the exclusion of Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, from the definition of the
expression “Hindu”, under the present act suffers from a violation of Article 14 of The
Constitution of India.[8]

In M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair and Anr. v. State of kerela and Ors.,[9] the supreme court settled
that:

1. The constitution prohibits the establishment of a theocratic state.

2. The constitution is not only prohibit to establish any religion of it’s own but is also
prohibited to identify itself with or favoring any particular religion.
3. The secularism under the Indian Constitution does not mean constitution of an atheist
society but it merely means the equal status of all religions without any preference in favor
of or discrimination against any one of them.

However, the principle of equality of law does not mean not that the same law should apply to
everyone but that a law should deal alike with all in one class, that there should be an equality
of treatment under equal circumstances.[10] But the present HRCE Act of 1951 does only
apply to Hindu Denomination and Hindu Temples. And woefully it transgresses the mandates
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Further in case State of Tamil Nadu v. Ahobila Matam,[11] Supreme Court laid down that any
law which takes away the right of administration altogether from the religious denominations
and vests it in any other body or a secular authority would amount to a violation of the right
which is guaranteed by Art. 26(d) of the Constitution of India..

Again in K. Mukundaraya Bhenoy v. The State of Mysore[12] the court ruled that a law which
takes away the right of administration from the hands of a religious denomination altogether
and vests it in any other authority would amount to a violation of the right guaranteed under
Article 26 of the Constitution of India. This judgment also showed the state cannot discriminate
between Hindu religious denomination in the matter of temple administration.

A Full bench of the Kerela high court in T. Krishnan v. G.D.M Committee[13] has ruled in
Paras 35 and 36 that a statute cannot, therefore, empower any secular authority to divert the
trust money for a purpose other than those for which trust was created as that would amount to
a violation of a right which a religious denomination has under Article 25 and 26 of
Constitution of India.

More Recently, Karnataka High court in the case of Sri Sahasra Lingeshwara Temple v. State
of Karnataka also declared the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable
Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2011 and the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and
Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2012, are discriminatory and unconstitutional.[14]

Hence the present HRCE Act is violative of article 25,26 & 14 of The Constitution of India .

After the Unconstitutionality of HRCE Act, it is also observed that the looting of Hindu temples
and demolition of them would also amount to a penal offense under Sec. 295 of I.P.C. which
states that;

295. Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any
class.—Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held
sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any
class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such
destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine,
or with both.

This section makes the destruction, damage or defilement of a place of worship or an object
held sacred, with intent to insult the religion.[15]

In the case Romesh Chunder Sannyal v. Hiru Mondal[16] it was held that the section would
also apply to cases where an idol in a temple is sought to be destroyed, damaged, or defiled.
And The decision impliedly recognizes the duty of the State to protect the sentiments and
susceptibilities of its different groups of citizens.
The breaking in public of an unconsecrated clay idol of God Ganesa held sacred by a large
section of Hindus with the express intention of insulting the feelings, of the Hindu community
would be an offense under Sec. 295.[17]

It is the cardinal principle of good government that every man should be suffered to profess his
own religion and that no man should be suffered to insult the religion of another.[18]

Yet by the present action of government under HRCE Act, they have the clear intention to
insult the religion of particular denominational sect i.e. the Hindu denominational Sect and
their religious class because they passed the enactment and ordered to take over the only
administration of Hindu temples, and not other religious institution like church, mosque etc.,
who also have a large number of funds or sufficient funds but they just ordered to take this
particular religion or religious property this shows that they have clear intention to insult the
religion of particular class, moreover they also have knowledge that the particular class of
person is likely to consider such destruction, defilement as an insult to their religion, despite
this also they continuous false actions are taking place.

As such it is only Hindu temples that are under state control, of which government administers
and manages finance, takeover and dispose of temple assets, divert funds for other purposes,
not the churches or mosques.

CONCLUSION

Hence all the above action of the government shows that they have clear intention to insult the
religion of particular denominational sect and their class. Hence the action of government
constitutes all the essentials of section 295 and same is a penal offence under section 295 of
I.P.C., which should be stopped and at least there should be a legal route which could assist to
uproot control of Hindu temples from the government and hand it back to the practitioners of
Hindu Dharma and bring back the mislaid ambience and glory of Vedic Hindu temples and
Hinduism.

REFERENCES

[1] T.V.D. Naidu v. Commissioner H.R. & C.E. (Admn.) Department, AIR 1989 Mad 60, 66.

[2] P.F. Sadavarthy v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., AIR 1963 SC 510, 512.

[3] A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1996 SC 1765.
[4] The Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., AIR
1974 SC 1389.

[5] M. Nagraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 1.

[6] Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, Civil Appeal No. 979 of 2014 (arising out
of SLP No. 26090 of 2011) decided on 12 February 2014.

[7] AIR 1958 SC 536.

[8] Sri Sahasra Lingeshwara Temple v. State of Karnataka, 2006 ILR(Kar) 4386.

[9] AIR 2005 SC 3053.

[10] Gauri Shankar v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 55.

[11] AIR 1987 SC 245.

[12] 1959 Mys.LJ 709.

[13] AIR 1978 Ker 68.

[14] Supra Note 7.

[15] Mustaffa Rahim v. Motilal, (1909) Cr Lj 160.

[16] ILR 17 Cal 852.

[17] Venu Srinivasan v. Krishnamachari and Ors., (2005) 4 MLJ 596.

[18] Kutti Chanami Moothan v. Rana Pattar, (1978) 19 Cri LJ 960.