SABARIMALA APPEAL: A TRAGEDY OF BLUNDERS

Thomas Gray, an English poet and scholar, coined the phrase: “ignorance is bliss”. At times, though, ignorance can lead to an “abyss of depravity”...in legal argument.

Case in point. The recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Sabarimala Temple case.

The pronouncement has paved the way for entry of all women into the sanctum sanctorum of the temple. It is no doubt a watershed moment in the history of justice in India. While devotees of Lord Ayyappa, the presiding Deity of the Sabarimala Temple, have assailed the landmark verdict, women's rights activists and liberals have hailed it.

Nevertheless, the judgment does represent the nadir of legal presentation and advocative persuasion. Here are seven failings of the battery of legal luminaries that argued the matter.

Hindu Temple: The Lord's Home

ONE: A Hindu temple is referred to as devālaya or devasthāna— literally, 'home of God' or 'abode of God'. As has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the divine spirit descends into the idol/image in the temple upon consecration. From then on, the image of the presiding Deity, a juristic entity under law, is believed to reside in the temple. Devotees then venerate the image through assorted pūjas, ārti, etc., which the priestly class, as intermediaries, perform in the temple.

Thus, the Hindu temple erases the divide between man and the Divine. It serves as a place of communion with Divinity for devotees and provides spiritual bliss and succor to the faithful. It is not a “place of worship (pūja)” for devotees, who can seek audience, that is, darśaņa of the Deity though and receive His blessings by offering prayers and obeisance to the Almighty through the temple priest, or archaka. No rituals, be it seva, pūja, homa, yajna or archana, are performed directly by the faithful, who are mere visitors/spectators within the temple.

Thus, being the abode of the Almighty, the temple precincts are His/Her private space sanctified through rituals and practices based on specific vedās, āgamas, śāstras and sampradāyas.

It is apparent that the temple trustees were unable to convince the Hon'ble Apex Court that the temple is not a public space per se. Neither is it a tourist spot. Hence, entry is a privilege governed by applicable customs and traditions.

No Gender-based Disparity or Discrimination

TWO: The counsels appearing on behalf of the temple trustees ought to have argued that the prevalent practice in question is only age-based exclusion; it is not gender-based disparity or discrimination.

Such age-based exclusions, restrictions, prohibitions and eligibility criteria have always been applied by the State for several purposes, which inter alia include appointments to public offices.

Now, it is empirically established and scientifically supported that while many girls attain puberty at an age as early as 8 years, some women reach menopause at an age as late as 55 years. The median age for menopause among Indian women is believed to be 44 years.

Further, the anatomical and physiological phenomenon of menstruation is not restricted to women alone. It is a medical and scientific fact that menstruation occurs in “intersex humans”, “trans-men” and “pseudo-hermaphroditic men with autosomal recessive congenital disorders due to the presence of Müllerian derivatives.”

Hence, it can hardly be concluded that the practice is discriminatory towards menstruating women, given the lack of scriptural records linking the practice to physiological or reproductive criteria.

So why this brouhaha over the erroneous linking of an age-based restriction with menstruation?

Arbitrariness of the Age Bracket

All the same, the age-group of 10-50 years is arguably and admittedly arbitrary. As much as the age-limit of 32 years applicable to 'general-category' candidates appearing for the UPSC examinations is!

Further, Articles 14 and 15 impose duties on the State and not on religion, which is 'separate' from our State under our constitutional framework and the 'secular' principles enshrined therein. Therefore, the contention that the age restriction at Sabarimala is ultra vires the Constitution is a red herring, be it on legal or moral grounds.

Rights and Privileges of the Deity

THREE: It is well-settled that rights can be enjoyed by one and all without depriving, derogating or diminishing the rights of others. It is a fact that a large section of Hindu society, both male and female, revere Lord Ayyappa as a “naiśțika brahmachāri” and support the continuance of the prevalent customary practices, which are neither pernicious to the interests of nor detrimental to the well-being of other devotees.

Indeed devotees in favor of sustaining the traditional practices at Sabarimala Temple too are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely practice their religion. They too have a right to adhere to rituals and express their devotion within the sanctum sanctorum and a religious milieu that is devoid of women of a particular age-group, arbitrary or otherwise. No coercion or compulsion can be imposed on them in issues of individual faith.

Of course, those who believe that such customary practices in the temple of great antiquity are abhorrent or repugnant, have no locus to demand any reformation of a matter pertaining to personal choice and private preference.

Nonetheless, non-believers must be freely allowed to form a separate sect or schismatic denomination of Lord Ayyappa worshipers and set up religious institutions that impose no restrictions on its faithful.

Arduous Sabarimala Pilgrimage

FOUR: Further, for many devotees, observance of piety, celibacy and abstinence over 41 days culminates in the visit to the Sabarimala shrine. This crucial facet was not forcefully brought out during arguments.

An essential aspect of the observances is that the darśaņa of Lord Ayyappa is to be completed in a certain religious context and traditional setting that is devoid of women in the said age-group. Hence, the presence of such women in the temple precincts would hurt the religious sentiments and violate the fundamental rights of the many devotees observing the elaborate 41-day ritual with great zeal, fealty and asceticism.

In fact, female worshipers with true devotion for and great reverence to the Deity would honor tradition and refrain from entering the sanctum sanctorum. After all, devotees are those who owe allegiance to, respect the sanctity of and protect the dignity of the Deity. Such persons surely would abide by applicable customs, practices and traditions.

It is only agenda-driven atheists, heretical activists and meddlesome mischief-mongers masquerading as devotees of the Lord who would want to spoil the holiness of a 41-day, penance-like ritual and pilgrimage undertaken by millions of Hindu men.

Fundamental Rights of Devotees

FIVE: The fundamental rights delineated in Article 25 of the Constitution are no doubt available to 'all persons'. But, the rights are to be enjoyed and exercised without hurting corresponding rights of others.

Thus, the counsels failed to establish that those rights do not extend to the right to worship inside a temple, which is the exclusive domain/privilege of the designated priest(s) acting as an intermediate agent or empowered attorney for appropriately chanting mantras and performing rituals.

The entry to the holy shrine is indeed an integral aspect of the 41-day “vrittham”, which comprises of pious observances and devout abstinence. The arduous pilgrimage to and the final, ceremonial entry into the sanctum sanctorum are essential elements for the segment of Hindus, denominational or otherwise, devoted to Lord Ayyappa.

Hence, it is ironical for a believer in Lord Ayyappa belonging to the impugned demographic segment to insist on visiting the shrine by not only defying the prevalent traditions, but also denting and denuding the rights of fellow-believers to observe their vows of abstinence. A true devotee of Lord Ayyappa would abide by and subscribe to the applicable restrictions in deference to traditional practices.

Concept of Religious Denominations

SIX: The counsels representing the temple trustees failed to impress upon the learned Judges that the term “denomination” is alien to Hinduism. The Christian denomination is an 'identifier' to an ecclesiastical order and an associated hierarchy of local churches, which consists of congregations of affiliated members. Every denomination has a structured theological organisation with well-defined 'command-and-control structures' and 'distinctive traditions and procedures'. Members, who are inducted into the 'covenant community', profess the denominational faith and observe its practices.

The relationship between the denomination and its devotee, that is, the member, is one-on-one. Thus, Christian denominations are mutually exclusive. In other words, Christians belonging to one denomination owe allegiance exclusively to that denomination, despite being monotheistic.

Contrarily, every Hindu enjoys an inclusive, 'many-to-many' relationship with the Creator and His Embodiments. The underlying polytheistic fabric permits every Hindu to be devoted simultaneously to several Deities and frequent religious institutions belonging to diverse denominations. The religious freedom and flexibility permits Hindus to follow disparate rituals, usages, customs and practices with minimal denominational encumbrances.

Hindu Temples and Denominations

Past judicial pronouncements have straight-jacketed Hinduism by force-fitting it into a Christian paradigm. Nevertheless, if the Christian concept of “denominations” were to be imposed on Hinduism− the interpretation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Shirur Mațh and SP Mittal judgments serving as the gold standard− then, not just monastic orders such as Hindu mațha, but every temple would constitute a denomination.

The rationale is simple.

Each Hindu temple: (a) is designated by a distinctive name; (b) has a group/collection of (devoted) individuals with a common faith, that is, a system of beliefs, doctrines and practices based on the consecrated Deity therein, which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being; and, (c) consists of a spiritual/religious organisation comprising of priests, trustees, benefactors and administrators.

When viewed through the prism above, the Sabarimala Temple sure enough is a “denomination temple”. It is the polytheistic nature of Hinduism though that permits us to be inclusive and non-discriminatory in our devotion towards multiple Deities.

Secularism and Constitutional Morality

SEVEN: It is well-settled in law that “secularism” is about the separation of State and religion. Accordingly, government has to not only be non-religious, but also accord equal, non-discriminatory status to all religions.

It also widely-accepted that the judicial apparatus is one of the three branches in the 'trias politica' state.

Hence, if the lofty ideal of 'secularism' enshrined in the Constitution is to be realised/adhered to in India, the judiciary too must refrain from interfering in religious affairs, particularly practices that do not derogate, deprecate or depreciate the rights of others. Any devotee taking exception to the prevalent faith, custom and tradition is under no coercion, obligation or compulsion to follow the same.

It further follows that the judiciary is indeed duty-bound to uphold constitutional morality and legitimacy by strictly and completely adhering to the tenets of “secularism”.

Final Observations

It appears from the ratio decidendi in the Sabarimala judgment that legal submissions in favour of retaining the demographic restrictions at the temple were weak and pedestrian, if not myopic. It surely would have been worthwhile to pursue the jurisprudential angles detailed above.

But, would that have altered the outcome of the proceedings?

I surely don't have the answer. Do you?

GOVERNMENT HATAO; TEMPLE BACHAO!

Nandi Betta, a hill about 60 kilometers from Bengaluru, features an ancient fort dating back to the Ganga period.

Atop the hill is the Yoga Nandīśwara Temple built by the Cholas about thousand years ago. In 2003, the government ensnared this temple into its administrative control under the Karnataka Endowments Act.

A visit to this beautiful shrine reveals a sad saga of wanton neglect and gross mismanagement. Rotting doors, ill-maintained precincts, structural dilapidation, missing kalaśa atop the śikara, majestic pillars callously plastered with cement concrete…the list is endless! A grand showpiece of past glory is a shameful blot of present ruin.

Courtesy: An apathetic, incompetent government; its negligent functionaries and inadequacy of resources.

The moot point: Why does our State meddle with religious affairs despite its secular credentials? Why is our meddlesome government entangled in administering only Hindu temples?

The simple answer: greedy, shoddy government clubbed with a lax, careless community!

Regulation of Religion in India

The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was a watershed moment in the independence struggle. Simmering skepticism over British rule and raging resentment against their policies culminated in the insurrection. The final spark for the rebellion was the use, as rumored, of beef and pork tallow to grease Enfield rifle cartridges. The British eventually quelled the mutiny. The colonial regime though learned its lesson— interference in religious affairs and indigenous traditions had to be minimal in the sub-continent.

Till the mid-1800s, regulations provided for general superintendence of Hindu temple endowments. The Board of Revenue was authorised to appoint local agents for achieving objects of endowments. In the aftermath of the sepoy revolt, the British introduced a new Act in 1863 to relinquish direct administration and provide for supervision of temples by local committees. In effect, an arm’s length philosophy was adopted for regulating religion.

The 1863 legislation had no in-built mechanism for enforcing orders; hence, the British enacted laws in 1920s for supervisory control of Hindu religious and charitable endowments in presidency towns. The erstwhile princely State of Mysore too promulgated an enactment in 1914 for regulating Hindu endowments. The Act was amended in 1927 to extend control over all religious institutions, including masjids, dargahs, etc. Indeed the endowment laws applied equally to all religions in British Raj.

Origins of the Karnataka Enactment

State boundaries were redrawn to create modern Karnataka in 1956. Yet, multiple, commendably-secular British-era endowment laws continued to be prevalent in the State. These statutes— such as: the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927; the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations, 1349 Fasli; and, the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950— provided for the registration and supervision of all public trusts, charitable endowments and religious institutions, including temple, maṭha, waqf, church, synagogue and agiary.

In its 1980 Admar Mutt judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court severely criticised the absence of a comprehensive legislation encompassing all temples and mutts in the reorganized State of Karnataka. This paved the way for a unified legislation to uniformly regulate religious institutions.

Unfortunately though, the government— initially, Śri JH Patel’s Janata Dal and later, Śri SM Krishna’s Congress governments— destroyed the secular fabric of previous legislations under the garb of unifying endowments laws of Karnataka. Thus, the Karnataka Hindu Religious & Charitable Institutions Act, 1997 was enacted and notified for targeted regulation of only Hindu temples and religious institutions.

Constitutionality of the Enactment

The 1997 Act excludes Hindu mutts and Sikh, Jain and Buddhist institutions from its ambit. The discrimination aside, it also enables the diversion of common pool fund contributions of Hindu temples for the benefit of other religions. Hence, on judicial challenge (Sahasra Lingeshwara case), the High Court of Karnataka found the Act was arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustifiable; violative of Articles 14, 25 and 26. Hence, it was declared unconstitutional!

The State then constituted a high-powered committee under Justice Rama Jois to suggest suitable amendments for circumventing the unconstitutionality. The stated object was to strengthen Hindu institutions by regulating 'secular and pecuniary matters', facilitating 'good and efficient administration' and protecting 'religious autonomy'.

Flawless rationale! The exercise of sovereign power to regulate any religious institution is indeed kosher.

But, administration?

Absolutely not!

Legislative Discrimination and Arbitrariness

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held (in Gopalakrishnan Nair case) that the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a theocratic State. The government is proscribed from constituting an atheist society and identifying itself with or favouring any one religion. It clarified that secularism is about affording “equal status of all religions without any preference…or discrimination…”— a view reiterated in the Bal Patil Judgment too, wherein it also proclaimed that religious, cultural and educational rights of all people, enshrined in Articles 25 to 30, must be protected. The ideal of a democratic society should be the elimination of majority and minority and forward and backward classes.

When viewed from the prism of the above precedents, any legislation that provides for administrative control, besides regulation, of only Hindu institutions is discriminatory. The exclusion of other religions is inherently communal, for it implies that non-Hindu religious institutions are never mismanaged.

The 1997 Karnataka Act curtails the rights of Hindus only; it transgresses unjustifiably the equal entitlement to freedom of conscience afforded to all under the Constitution.

Hence, the unjust act must be assailed vigorously; and, with vehemence, right?

Fundamental Right to Equality

Under Indian laws Hindu deities are juristic persons— so too, the Guru Granth Sahib— capable of holding property, receiving income, suing and being sued in court. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held (Basheshar Nath and Chiranjit Chowdhuri cases) that 'fundamental rights' are guaranteed to all; and, that the rights to 'equality before law' and 'equal protection of laws' enure to the benefit of all persons, citizens and non-citizens.

The State Trading Corporation (STC) judgment echoes the view that the Constitution contra-distinguishes rights to be enjoyed by all, “irrespective of whether they were citizens or aliens, or…natural…or juristic persons...”

It was clarified in the Budhan Choudhry judgment that Article 14 forbids class legislation, but not reasonable classification founded on intelligible differentia for legislation. The classification must relate rationally to the object of the statute though, for "the reason for a law ceasing, the law itself ceases.”

Hence, if alleged, legislative discrimination must be properly justified. As observed in the Bachan Singh case: “‘rule of law’…permeates the Indian Constitution…arbitrariness or unreasonableness…is denial of rule of law.”

Faith, Equality and Secularism

The interpretation espoused in the STC case shows the “right to equality” applies to artificial, juristic entities such as Hindu deities. Hence, any legislation that abridges or diminishes the fundamental rights of any person, be it the presiding deity of a temple, or its devotees, would be unconstitutional.

The Hon’ble Apex Court has declared (Ismail Faruqui case) that “secularism is one facet of…equality” All religions and religious communities must be preserved, protected and placed on par. The expression ‘any person’ in Article 14 has been construed (TMA Pai judgment) to mean similarly situated persons. It has also been held (SR Bommai case) that religion of a person 'is immaterial'; all are equal and entitled to be treated equally.

This secular duty of upholding the right to equality of all persons extends to holding all juristic entities and artificial persons on an equal pedestal regardless of religious color, spiritual flavor or philosophical tenor.

The moot point is: Can a secular government differentially favor faiths or selectively curtail rights of deities associated therewith?

Certainly not!

Yet, Hindu institutions of all hues have been singled out for State intervention. Similar laws do not exist for empowering direct State involvement in the affairs churches, mosques, etc.

And, that surely is discriminatory, no matter how you slice and dice it!

Right to Propagate Religion

A secular state is an areligious, irreligious or non-religious state; it has no inherent right to “manage religious affairs” or “administer Hindu temples”. The Apex Court has observed (AVKV Temple case) that the right to manage temples or endowments is “not integral to religion or religious practice.”

So, a duty is imposed on the State to intervene in the event of mismanagement of religious affairs.

In the landmark Shirur Mutt case, the Supreme Court ruled that propagation of belief is protected, regardless of whether it “takes place in a church or monastery or…temple or parlor meeting.” In other judgments too (Govindlalji and Ratilal Gandhi cases) it has reiterated that the freedom to practice rituals; manage religious affairs; and, administer property lawfully are guaranteed, fundamental rights. Legislation cannot take away those rights, which are neither absolute nor unfettered though.

Yet, state meddling in administrative affairs of Hindu temples transgresses rights. It depletes Hindu ability to retain their ‘devoted faithful’, which is intrinsic to the temple ecosystem and pivotal for propagating Hindu dharma.

Thus, the Constitution does not contemplate the governance of religious practices, subject to public order, health and morality. It does permit the regulation of religious activities, which are economic or political in character.

Regulation, though, does NOT mean administration!

Real Meaning of Denomination

The Hon’ble Apex Court relied (Shirur Mutt case) on the Oxford Dictionary to equate ‘denomination’ with Hindu mutt/maṭha (based on sampradāya), which is designated by a distinctive name, has a common faith and spiritual organisation. The Karnataka Endowments Act too describes ‘Hindu Religious Denomination’ in like terms.

So, what is a ‘denomination’?

Dictionaries define it as 'branch of any religion' and 'religious organization whose congregations are united in adherence to distinctive beliefs (about God) and practices'. A Christian denomination is an ecclesiastical order with a structured theological organisation; associated hierarchy of local churches and comprised of congregations of faithful members. It has distinctive procedures for traditions, such as, ordination, laicization, defrocking, induction (membership) into the “covenant community”, transfer of affiliation, repentance, profession of faith, confession/acceptance of and commitment to Lord Jesus, baptism, remission of sins, sanctification, etc.

A new denomination is created when some members reject the spiritual leadership of a church/group due to doctrinal dissent or immoral practices. The breakup is typically nominal, and not schismatic (refuted by some groups), since both factions stay within Christianity despite disparate labels, beliefs and practices.

Thus, the Christian denomination is an identifier for affiliation by membership to an organised school of thought, which consists of well-defined ‘procedural mechanisms’ and ‘command and control structure, either central or decentralised’. On top, there is a 1:1 relationship between devotee (the member) and denomination.

Hindu Denomination— A Misnomer?

Hinduism has no organisational hierarchy; ecclesiastical order; governing body or central authority. Neither is there a prophet or binding holy book. Unlike monotheistic, Abrahamic religions, Hinduism affords freedom on theistic— polytheistic, pantheistic, monistic, or atheistic— beliefs. Within its open, diffuse and diverse structure, spirituality in Hinduism is a matter of personal faith, individual experience and philosophical discovery of Divinity and individual devotion to His manifestations or embodiments.

Swami Harshānanda’s “Encyclopedia of Hinduism” explains 'sampradāya' literally as: “that which is given or handed over (in succession)” from a guru/teacher to śiśya(s)/disciple(s). Sanskrit-English dictionaries unanimously interpret the term as referring to bodies of founder-teachers and their disciples. It connotes traditional doctrine of knowledge; or, conventional teaching in arts, sciences or religion; or, established belief, custom, practice or usage.

Monier Williams though adds the connotation of ‘sect’ or ‘class of people’ in his lexicon— perhaps the seminal reason for importing an extrinsic term like ‘denomination’ into Hinduism. In reality, sampradāya and denomination are like chalk and cheese; yet, equating the two is force-fitting of the dhārmic narrative into a western paradigm.

Every maṭha/mutt typically has a definitive parampara (tradition); darśaṇa (philosophical doctrine); mārga (path); and, associated sampradāya-based monastic order and lineage. Hence, deeming maṭha (so too āśrama) to be the Hindu-equivalent of the alien, Christian concept of 'denomination' is flawed.

Hindu Temples and Denominations

If the Shirur Mutt interpretation of ‘denomination’ is the judicial gold standard, then every Hindu devālaya (literally, abode of the Almighty) or temple constitutes a religious denomination. So it can be tenably argued.

The argument is simple.

The temple is a religious institution based on a distinctive belief, conforming to specific vāstu-, śilpa- and sthāpatya-śāstras; the presiding Deity is consecrated based upon spiritual affiliation to a definite sampradāya. Distinctive veda and āgama dictate the religious practices— rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes of worship catering to the needs of and providing succor to congregated devotees.

Given the religious fabric and devotional constructs of Hinduism, classifications exist socially through birth-based jāti (caste) and theoretically through varṇa (class). Every Hindu owes allegiance to numerous temples and seeks solace in presiding Deities, regardless of jāti, varṇa, dharma, sampradāya and parampara. For example, the Manjunātheśwara Temple in Dharmasthaḷa, Karnataka has Jain dharmādhikāris administering the temple as its hereditary trustees and vaiśnava archakās worshiping the mūrti of Śiva therein.

Ergo, endowment laws must be recalibrated to hold every Hindu temple as a ‘denomination’ for conferring rights.

Right to Maintain Religious Institutions

Article 26 bestows the fundamental right to “establish and maintain” religious and charitable institutions on every denomination. Indeed, administration is integral to [if not synonymous] maintenance of an institution. The Karnataka High Court ruled (Mukundaraya Shenoy case) that a law, which takes away administrative rights from a religious denomination altogether and vests them in another authority, would violate Article 26. The Orissa High Court too expressed (Ram Chandra Deb case) similar sentiments; it pronounced that if Zoroastrians are a separate religious denomination within the meaning of Article 26, then so too are all Hindus.

Further, the State cannot discriminate between Hindu denominational and institutional temples. To wit, a maṭha is as much a religious institution as a devālaya is a religious denomination and vice-versa.

Further, Article 25(2) empowers the State to regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice. But, 'administrative control' of temple activities, secular or religious, cannot be deemed to be 'regulation or restriction' of such activities. Therefore, the ratio decidendi of Pannalal Pitti case perhaps deserves a revisit.

Administration, not just superintendence, of Hindu shrines by the State abridges, if not abrogate, the religious rights of Hindus. It impinges on the fundamental right of equality of all Hindu persons. Regulation of properties of only Hindu Deities is arbitrary and unreasonable; it contravenes judgments in Bal Patil and other cases.

Governmental Takeover of Hindu Temples

The right to property is not a fundamental, but a constitutional right. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held (Elphinstone Mills and other cases) the State is empowered to take over management of any property for a limited period, not indefinitely. But, the takeover must objectively be “in public interest or…to secure proper management…”

The Karnataka statutes and rules stipulate no objective method for ascertaining financial irregularity and/or managerial lacunae. The ‘takeover’ of about 35,000 Hindu religious institutions in Karnataka has been effected: (a) without adverse complaints, not to mention flimsy, frivolous grounds; (b) often on subjective report of the competent authority; and, (b) without specifying the period of takeover.

Thus, the governmental exercise ad infinitum of administrative control over Hindu places of worship is vitiated by illegality— a fraudulent affront to the dignity the Constitution.

Primary functions of government are reduction of class disparities and enhancement of socio-economic conditions of its people through good governance and transparent administration. Entanglement in the management of places of worship is contrary to secular tenets. Such takeover must be only in public interest, provided there is objective evidence of maladministration as a condition precedent. Further, while exercising regulatory power over various faiths, religions and denominations, the State is duty-bound to be neutral and impartial.

However, that mandate has been deviously hijacked to usurp the fundamental rights of only Hindus.

Autonomous Temple Administration

The Hon’ble Apex Court (Sabayanagar Temple case) has held that when government acquires a temple, it must hand management back after remedying the evil. Power to regulate does not empower superseding administration indefinitely. Direct engagement of a secular government in the administrative affairs— ‘secular’, ‘pecuniary’ or ‘religious’— of religious institutions infringes the fundamental rights of devotees.

Every temple ecosystem entails activities around three realms, namely: the ādhibhautika, ādhidaivika and ādiatmika, which respectively correspond to the ‘physical & financial’, ‘ritual & cultural’ and ‘spiritual & philosophical’ relationships with Divinity.

Regulation should be restricted to the ādhibhautika realm, that is, only the physical and financial aspects of the temple. It must be arm’s length superintendence, for the core objects of every temple is practice and propagation of religion. All incidental activities are auxiliary to and intertwined with those main objects.

Arguably no temple activity is purely non-religious, or exclusively secular, in nature.

Conclusions

The ultra vires administration of Hindu temples aside, legislative loopholes give ample opportunity for unabashed, unabated exploitation. The concomitant loot, larceny and largesse by the instrumentality of the State has to end.

The fence eating the crop must stop! The Karnataka Endowments Act having only Hindu institutions under its purview is an ill-conceived, politically-motivated move— a Trojan for trampling upon the rights of Hindus.

Thus, an urgent need exists for affording greater autonomy to Hindu temples. The preservation of pluralistic society and a secular, democratic State is at stake!

The million-dollar question: Will government show spine in coming up with a pan-religion legislation?

Your guess is as good as mine!