Temple Mismanagement: Karnataka High Court Says Subordinate Officer Can't Further Delegate Inquiry Under Hindu Religious Institutions Act

Consequently, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha set aside the Single Judge order which had held that proceedings regarding the mismanagement of the Shri Vishnumurthy Temple under Section 42 of the Act were not bona fide because they were initiated without any material. The High Court restored the matter to the stage of an enquiry under Section 43(6) of the Act.

For context, Section 43 of the Act deals with notifying a Hindu Religious Institution on the grounds of mismanagement. While Section 43(1) allows the Commissioner, who has reason to believe that such an institute is being mismanaged, to call upon temple managers and other interested persons to show cause as to why such an institution should not be notified under the Act, Section 43(6) authorises the Commissioner to appoint a subordinate officer to hold an enquiry into objections received under Section 43(1) and examine whether such an institution should be declared subject to the regulations under the Act.

“we find that the enquiry, as directed by the Commissioner, has not been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In terms of Sub-section (6) of Section 43 of the Act, the Commissioner may empower any person subordinate to him to hold an enquiry as prescribed.

In the present case, the Commissioner had authorised the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry. However, the Deputy Commissioner did not conduct the enquiry. He in turn had instructed the Assistant Commissioner to conduct the enquiry, which, in our view, was impermissible,” the Bench said.

It added, “It is well settled that the power to authorise any official to conduct an enquiry under Sub-section (6) of Section 43 of the Act rests with the Commissioner. After the Commissioner authorised the Deputy Commissioner to do so, the Deputy Commissioner has no further authority to delegate the conduct of the enquiry.”

'Reasons to believe' that temple is being mismanaged exist

The Court said that the jurisdictional condition for issuing a notice under Section 43(1) is the existence of “reason to believe” that the institution is being mismanaged. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs. Income-Tax Officer (1961) and Income Tax Officer, I Ward, District VI, Calcutta v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976), it observed that such belief must rest on cogent and relevant material having a nexus with the belief sought to be formed.

The Bench further noted, “It is also settled that, while examining the existence of reason to believe, the courts cannot evaluate the sufficiency of the said reasons. Thus, if material is available and it has a nexus with reason to believe, the said condition is satisfied.”

Disagreeing with the Single Judge's finding, the High Court observed that there was material to show mismanagement, which formed a basis for issuing the show cause notice under Section 43(1) of the Act.

For this, the Court took into account several factors, including the temple's managing committee not being officially registered under any department, a lack of documents supporting the claim that the family trust was hereditary administrators of the temple, public opposition to the temple management under the family trust, differences of opinion between the office bearers and difficulty in managing the daily operational expenses.

The Court noted, “The fact that sufficient funds were collected, yet difficulty was faced in managing daily operational expenses, was a ground for considering that the Temple's affairs were being mismanaged.”

While observing that though the proceedings initiated against the temple should not be interdicted, the Court said that the enquiry directed by the Commissioner had not taken place as per the provisions of the Act.

Accordingly, the Court held, “In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the stage of an enquiry under Section 43(6) of the Act. However, the impugned order insofar as it sets aside the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner is not interfered with. The Deputy Commissioner shall conduct the enquiry afresh and submit a report to the Commissioner on whether the temple should be declared as an Institution subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Act.”

Background

The case revolves around the administration of the Shri Vishnumurthy Temple situated in Kalenja, Bantwal Taluk. Writ petitioners (Respondent Nos. 6 and 7), belonging to a Jain family, claimed that their forefathers constructed and maintained the temple in the 15th century, and that they had formed a trust on January 27, 2023, for its maintenance.

Soon thereafter, devotees filed a complaint on March 7, 2023, alleging potential misuse of funds, a disorganised management style, and differences over whether the temple land was private property. Following reports by the First Grade Supervisor and recommendations by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, a show-cause notice under Section 43(1) was issued by the Commissioner to the appellant temple president on October 20, 2023.

On July 5, 2024, the Commissioner requested the Deputy Commissioner to hold an enquiry, who in turn directed the Assistant Commissioner to hold the same and submit the report. The Assistant Commissioner's report formed basis of the Deputy Commissioner recommendations.

The petitioners challenged the recommendations, and a Single Judge Bench set aside the proceedings on the grounds of undue haste and lack of initial material. Disagreeing with the Single Judge's absolute interdiction, the division bench allowed the writ appeal in part, restoring the statutory mechanism while safeguarding procedural compliance.