Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GOVERNMENT RULES
HINDU TEMPLES
STATE CONTROL OF RELIGIOUS
DENOMINATIONS–PROBLEMS
AND PERSPECTIVES
C.S. RANGARAJAN
Government Rules
Hindu Temples
Copies : 1000
Price : Rs.100/-
Copies Available :
Dr. M.V. Soundararajan,
2-2-647/77/D, Srinivasanagar Colony,
Bagh Amberpet,
Hyderabad-500 013
Ph : 27425640
Printed at :
VAKDEVI PRINTERS
Nallakunta,
Hyderabad-44.
Ph : 27673772
CONTENTS
1. FOREWORD 5
2. PREFACE 12
3. INTRODUCTION 25
9. APPENDIX-I 100
FOREWORD
This book titled “GOVERNMENT RULES HINDU
TEMPLES” which as stated by the author is based on the dissertation
submitted by him in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award
of research degree of Master of Law [Constitution Law] of Osmania
University. At the out-set, I should place on record that this book has
been brought out on an in-depth study and research of objects and
purpose of Hindu Temples. There is an elaborate discussion about the
spiritual purpose of temples. The main object of the book is to increase
devotion in devotees which alone can bring in peace, harmony and
happiness among the people which is now being sacrificed at the altar
of commercialization and Government interference in the management
of Temples. It is well known that the whole object of temple worship
has been evolved in Bharat from times immemorial with the object of
inspiring and guiding every individual person to follow the rules of Dharma
by which alone the people can live in peace and happiness even in the
absence of State as explained in his inimitable language by Bhismacharya
in Mahabharata Shanti Parva (Ch-59-14) thus:
“Sri Shaila”
No.870-C, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010
• Ph : 080 - 23151770 • E-mail:ramajois31@gmail.com
-0-0-0-
1.1 BACKGROUND
Religion is deeply rooted in man and his blood since many centuries ago.
Still Religion has been dominating man and his way of thinking and
behaviour. Within the framework of human rights, religion is considered
as an inherent and individual right of the man.
Therefore religion is a very personal matter in man and his life. Within
the Eastern Philosophical traditions we can find a great thinker and the
religious man who was not limited to the East and the one who spread
that new ideal of the religion to the Western world. He is Swami
Vivekananda. He was born in 1863 and expired in 1902. Within that
short period he did excellent contribution to the tradition of the Vedântic
1
religion.
To Swami Vivekananda, Religion is not just a talk and doctrines or theories,
nor is it sectarianism. Religion cannot live in sects and societies. It is a
relationship between soul and God. He explains that religion does not
consist in erecting temples or building churches or attending public
worship. As well as it cannot be found in the books or in words or in
lectures or in organizations. Religion consists on realization. Religion
does not consist in subscribing to a particular creed or faith but in spiritual
realization. Therefore, spiritual realization is religion. He said that “I shall
try to bring before you the Hindu theory that religions do not come from
without, but from within. It is my belief that religious thought is in man’s
very constitution, so much so that it is impossible for him to give up
religion until he can give up his mind and body, until he can give up his
thought and life.”
6. State religion? No” Gautam Chikermane , Gautam Chikermane, Indian Express, 2006)
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS –
EVOLUTION
RELIGIOUS AND charitable trusts are found to exist, in some shape
or other, in almost all the civilized countries and their origin can be
traced primarily to the instincts of piety and benevolence which are
implanted in human nature. The form and nature of these trusts
undoubtedly differ according to the spiritual and moral ideas of
different nations, and even among the same people, the ideas are
seen to vary often to a considerable extent at different stages of
their religious and political history. Thus Imperial Rome under the
Christian Emperors was dissimilar in many respects to Pagan Rome,
and the religious and charitable institutions in England undoubtedly
took a different shape when she abjured Catholicism and became
Protestant. The popular Hindu religion of modern times is not the
same as the religion of the Vedas though the latter are still held to be
the ultimate source and authority of all that is held sacred by the
Hindus. In course of its development the Hindu religion did undergo
several changes, which reacted on the social system and introduced
corresponding changes in the social and religious institutions. But
whatever changes were brought about by time cannot be disputed
that they were sometimes of a revolutionary character the
fundamental moral and religious ideas of the Hindus which lie at the
root of their religious and charitable institutions, remained substantially
the same; and the system that we see around us can be said to be an
evolutionary product of the spirit and genius of the people passing through
different phases of their cultural development.
Let us now come to the other point and see what is meant by a
‘trust’. The conception of ‘trust’ in its technical sense was devised
by the Chancery Courts in England, which as Courts of Conscience
attempted to supply the deficiencies of the English Common Law, by
administering what were known as principles of equity and natural
justice. These principles were imported to a large extent from the
Roman Civil law, and the procedure adopted by the Equity Courts
4
was modelled on that of the Ecclesiastical tribunals, the principal
feature being the writ of Subpoena by which an unscrupulous
defendant who could not be touched in the common law courts was
compelled to appear before an Equity Judge and made to carry out
his orders, the proceeding being entirely one in personam. Lewin in
his well-known treatise on the Law of Trusts defines Trust’ to be a
“confidence reposed in some other, not issuing out of the land, but as
a thing collateral, annexed in privity to the estate of the land, for
which cestui que trust has no remedy but by Subpoena in the
5
Chancery” . This definition is not a happy one, and it has been
criticised by many later writers on the subject including Underbill
and Maitland. On the face of it, the definition is inadequate for it is
applicable to real estates only, whereas there can be trust of personal
You will see that the “Trust” in its origin was a highly artificial thing
which had its foundation upon a dual system of law and a dual system
of property which came into existence in England under peculiar political
and historical conditions. You could not possibly expect to find a trust in
this form in the Hindu system. But the existence of dual ownership
is not an essential ingredient in the conception of trust and if you
take “Trust” in its broad and general sense as signifying a fiduciary
The only juristic person recognised in early Roman Law was the
State or Popular Romanus, but it was a public and not a private
person, and all its transactions were governed not by private law but
by Jus Publicum.
Thus the church was a Juristic person, par excellence, under the
Christian Emperors, and as Christianity was the religion of the State
the church was really a State Institution. The theory of Roman Law
was that the privileges of a juristic person could be enjoyed by State
Institutions, and by those private institutions only to which recognition
was accorded by the State. Property given or left to a church by a
private individual to be applied for charitable purposes e.g. for
hospitals, alms houses, orphanages etc., vested ordinarily in the church
of the place where the donor resided, though in theory it belonged to
the church as a whole ; and if the endowment was of a permanent
character the Bishop set up an establishment for proper management
of the same, A further step was taken in the development of the law
on the subject when charitable institutions were allowed to be made
by private individuals without reference to the church.
10
“During the later Empire’ says Sohm “from the fifth century
onwards foundations created by private individuals came to be
recognised as foundations in the true legal sense, but only if they
took the form of Pia Causa i.e., were devoted to ‘pious uses’ only,
in short if they were charitable institutions. Whenever a person
dedicated property whether by gift interviewers or by will in favour
of the poor or the sick, or prisoners or orphans, or aged people he
thereby created ipso facto a new subject of legal rights the poor
house, the hospital and so forth and the dedicated property became
the sole property of the new subject it became the property of the
new Juristic person whom the founder had called into being.
Madhwa was another religious teacher who founded the sect named
after him. This is a purely dualistic school which recognises an eternal
distinction between man and his creator. The eight mutts at Udipi
where Madhwa lived and which are all centres of Dwaita system of
thought were admittedly established by him.
3. Ibid.
The Indian Legislature has not until now taken up the work of making
a comprehensive legislation on the subject of Hindu religious and
charitable trusts. There are a number of enactments both general
and local which aim at controlling the management and
administration of public religious and charitable endowments, and
provide remedy for prevention and redress of abuses in their
management. After the establishment of British Government in this
country it was discovered that the income of many endowments
both Hindu and Mohammedan was misspent and misappropriated
by the persons who were in charge of the same, The British
Government asserted its right of supervision over the endowed
properties which were exercised by the previous rulers and in 1810
a Regulation was passed in respect of the Province of Bengal under
which the general superintendence of all religious and charitable
endowments mentioned therein was vested in the Board of Revenue.
Similar Regulations were passed for Madras and Bombay
Presidencies in the year 1817 and 1827 respectively. Later on it
was thought that the connection of a Christian Government with
Hindu and Mohammedan religious endowments was not expedient
and by Act XX of 1863, the British Government divested itself of
the charge and control of these institutions and placed them under
the management of their respective creeds. Under the Act of 1863
a system of committee was devised to whom were transferred the
powers vested in the Government for the appointment of managers,
trustees and superintendents; rules were enacted to ensure proper
management and to empower the superior courts in the districts to
take cognizance of allegations of misfeasance against the managing
authority.
In a sense, the cultural conflict between the modern state and more
traditional religion lies behind and is logically prior to the previous two. At
issue are the basic values, understandings and symbols in terms of which
shared social purpose and unity are possible. Especially important is the
issue of legitimacy. The growth of the modern state is accompanied by
major shifts in the structure, procedure and goals of public power, often in
directions not entirely compatible with those of the past. Legitimacy in the
pre-modern era was often tied institutionally and ideologically to religion.
Modernizing states usually stake out independent claims, resting their rule
on written constitutions, statutory laws, formal procedure, and actual
performance in such areas as physical health, economic prosperity and
national security. Even states which maintain a religious connection, such
as extreme cases of theocracy, attempt to enhance their own autonomy.
The Tamil Nadu state enjoys relatively high stateness in matters of religion
for three especially important reasons.
First, south Indian kings historically had important connections with religion
and temples. The cultural expression of this connection is the concept of
the state as “protector” of religion generally and of temples specifically.
Some would argue that the HRCE is simply performing the contemporary
version of this traditional role.
As it happens, down to the present day the south Indian temple has
served as a rich and unending source for this sort of intellectual
argumentation among administrators, temple officials, lawyers and
scholars. The three issues examined in this study - governance,
economy, religious life - lend themselves to diverse and conflicting
interpretations. We shall focus especially on the theories of the HRCE*,
the Board of Revenue, and the judiciary, and the relation of each of them
to the south Indian temple. Each claim to have captured the “real”
nature of the temple, and their disagreements has profoundly affected the
dynamics of the temple-state relationship.
But these descriptions do not capture the dynamics and details of actual
religion-state interactions. A complete and impenetrable “wall” is unlikely
in any country. Religion is a dimension of individual and social activity and,
as such, is mixed inextricably with other areas, including economy, health,
education and culture. Since modern states take more and more initiative
in these areas, the “wall” is easily breached. The HRCE* is a major
instance of this breach. The constitutionality of the HRCE* has been
upheld by the Indian Supreme Court on the grounds that temples are public
The rishis who authored the Agama Samhitas, wanted people connected
with the temple, to feel a deep sense of attachment to the deity. They
The hereditary system was designed by our ancient Rishis, who had
tremendous foresight, the same rishis from whom we got such ancient
secrets like Yoga, Meditation, Dhyana etc; which have today been
proved by the new scientific data of past 20 years. Today, Hinduism in
the state of AP, is facing tremendous crisis in rural areas, because
The 30/87 act was passed in haste, by the Andhra Pradesh Government
in 1987, without any serious discussion. The legislation itself was based
on the recommendations, of a commission headed by Justice Challa
Kondiah. The commission restricted itself, to study of the affairs, of
major temples like Tirumala, and also borrowed from the 1969
amendment to the Tamil Nadu legislation, which advocated abolition
of hereditary system. The fact that the commission did not bother, to
check the ground reality in Tamil Nadu post 1971, and also did not
study issues relating to small 6C category temples; which form the
majority in Andhra Pradesh, were the main reasons for the eventual
failure of the 30/87 legislation.
The following points summarize the learning from the failure of the 30/
87 act.
It is not fair, to have a system, which wants hereditary system for low
income temples; and once these very same temples start having higher
income, then the same people are no longer needed.
The Andhra Pradesh legislature has learned its lessons from the 30/87
experiment, and has done a yeomen service to the future generations,
by enacting amendment Act 33 of 2007 which largely corrects all the
above lacunae by reinstating the hereditary archakatvam and trusteeship
and the experience has also been recorded in the statement of objects
and reasons for amendment Act 33 of 2007.
The bulk of the 30/87 legislation was upheld by the Supreme Court in
1996, along with some important riders. The fact that the legislation
was ill thought-out became very apparent, with many of the small village
temples, virtually closing down within a decade of its implementation.
The single main factor responsible for this was the abolition of the
hereditary system, which was against the wisdom of the Agama Rishis,
and the experience of thousands of years of temple administration.
This became a major issue in the 2004 elections, as there was
tremendous concern among devotees, on the future of the small temples.
The Andhra Pradesh legislature cutting across party lines, has
recognized its error in abolishing the hereditary system, and has
reinstated it through Act 33 of 2007.
The Supreme Court recently disposed of the review petition RPC 2350
of 1997 filed for reviewing the conclusion arrived at in the Narayana
judgement by taking into account the amendments brought about
through amendment Act 33 of 2007 based on the experience gained
by the legislature
In view of the above disposal of the RPC 2350 of 1997 and in light of
the amendments brought about to the Act it is important to also analyze
how the learned Judges of the Supreme Court erred in determining
that hereditary archakatvam is not an essential and integral part of
religion in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and
others (1996) 9 SCC 548 (Narayana Judgement) using the essential
practices doctrine so that corrective actions can be put in place to
ensure such errors are not repeated.
• removal of a trustee
• In such a suit, the court may alter the original purpose of the
trust and allow the property or income of such trust or any portion
thereof to be applied to different purpose or in a different manner
for a similar purpose, as nearly as possible according to the
intentions of the author.
»y ßTƒÁåσÁY@
™´ÆÁƒz≈Æ ™åÁz Æz ™ÁÊ uånÆÆÏO˛Á GúÁÃoz @
»ÚÆÁ ú∫ÆÁzúzoÁÀoz ™z ÆÏO˛o™Á ™oÁ: @@12-2@@
The Blessed Lord Said:
Those fixing their minds on Me worship Me, ever earnest and
possessed of supreme faith-them do I consider most perfect in Yoga
The teacher answers decisively that those, who worship God in His
manifested form, have greater Yoga Knowledge.
Bhagavad-Gita (Chapter 12 Sloka 7)
oz Á™“Ê Ã™ÏÚoÁ| ™wnÆÏÃÊÃÁ∫ÃÁT∫ÁoΩ @
߃Áu™ åuY∫ÁnúÁs| ™´ÆÁƒzu∆oYzoÃÁ™Ω @@12-7@@
Those whose thoughts are set on Me, I straightway deliver from the
ocean of death bound existence, O Partha (Arjuna)
Bhagavad-Gita (Chapter 12 Sloka 8)
™´Æzƒ ™å EÁánÀƒ ™uÆ §ÏuÚÊ uåƒz∆Æ @
uåƒuÃ…Æuà ™´Æzƒ Eo H܃˙ å ÃÊ∆Æ: @@12-8@@
E•ÆÁÃzDõÆÙsÁz|Duà ™nN˛™|ú∫™Áz ߃ @
™ts|™uú N˛™Á|um NÏ˛ƒ|uãÃuÚ™ƒÁõÀÆuà @@12-10@@
If thou art unable even to seek by practice, then be as one whose
supreme aim is my service; even performing actions for My sake,
thou shalt attain perfection.
If the concentration is found difficult on account of the outward
tendencies of the mind of our circumstances, then do all actions for
the sake of the Lord. Thus the individual becomes aware of the
eternal reality.
Matkarma : is sometimes taken to mean service of the Lord, puja or
worship, offering worship, offering flowers and fruits, burning
incense, building temples, reading scriptures etc.
Sri Ramanuja in his Gita Bhashya Defines the word Matkarma as follows:
“Any duty related to me such as construction of temples, lighting the
lamp, growing temple garden, getting flowers for me, bathing me,
pradakshina, obeisance to me, praising me by stotras with love and
devotion will please me.”
Bhagavad-Gita (Chapter 12 Sloka 11)
E•ÆÁÃzõÆÙsÁz|Duà ™nN˛™|ú∫™Áz ߃ @
™ts|™uú N˛™Á|um NÏ˛ƒ|åΩ uÃuÚ™ƒÁõÀÆuà @@ß.Ty.12-10@@
Government Rules Hindu Temples 134
Lord Krishna states that due to sheer rigor if you are unable to follow all
the rigorous vedic ordinances and penances to reach me you can atleast
be involved in duties related to me such as helping in temple affairs as
per ordainment. This will help you in reaching salvation. Lord Ramanuja,
in his celebrated Gitabhashya describes these duties as follows:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
AFFIDAVIT
and the Struggle for Control of Our Classrooms. Poseidon Press, 1993.
Carter, Stephen. The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics
Trivialize Religious Devotion. Basic Books, 1993.
Eastland, Terry, ed., Religious Liberty in the Supreme Court: The Cases
That Define the Debate Over Church and State. Washington, D.C.: Ethics
Company, 1993.
Eastland, Terry. Religious Liberty in the Supreme Court. Ethics and Public
Policy Center, 1993.
Press, 1995.
Haas, Carol. Engel vs. Vitale: Separation of Church and State. Hillside,
N.J.: Enslow Publications Inc., 1994.
Case Against Religious Correctness. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1996.
Lee, Francis Graham. All Imaginable Liberty: The Religious Liberty Clauses
of the First Amendment. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.,
1995.
Amendment. 2nd ed. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press,
1994.
Long, Carolyn N. Religious Freedom and Indian Rights: The Case of Oregon
Lugo, Luis E., ed. Religion, Public Life and the American Polity. Knoxville,
Tenn.: University of Tennessee Press, 1994.
Lynn, Barry, Marc D. Stern, and Oliver S. Thomas. The Right to Religious
Liberty: The Basic ACLU Guide to Religious Rights. 2nd ed., revised and
updated. Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1995.
Marty, Martin E. with Jonathan Moore. Politics, Religion and the Common
Press, 1994.
Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution. Lawrence, KS: University
Press of Kansas, 2000.
Institution, 1985.
Ronojoy Sen Articles of Faith Religion, Secularism, and the Indian Supreme
Religions, 1994.
Wood, James E., Jr. and Derek Davis, eds. The Role of Government in
Monitoring and Regulating Religion in Public Life. Waco, TX: Baylor
University, 1993.