Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Karnataka's Appeal Against 2006 HC Verdict Striking Down Law To Regulate Hindu Religious Institutions

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved judgment in an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against a 2006 Karnataka High Court judgment which had struck down a 1997 law regulating Hindu religious institutions and charitable endowments across the State.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe reserved judgment.

The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 was enacted to consolidate and replace five earlier laws governing Hindu religious and charitable institutions in different regions of Karnataka.

The High Court had invalidated the 1997 Act in its entirety, holding that it was violative of Articles 14 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The court, however, protected actions already taken under the Act and directed that its ruling would operate prospectively.

The Act applied to Hindu religious institutions and charitable endowments but expressly excluded maths or temples attached thereto and any Hindu religious institution or charitable endowment founded, organised, run or managed by a Hindu religious denomination. Section 2(16) defined “Hindu” to exclude Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs.

A batch of writ petitions before the High Court challenged the constitutional validity of the Act and certain notifications issued under it. On September 9, 2005, a Single Judge upheld the Act.

On appeal before the Division Bench, the appellants contended that exclusion of maths and denomination temples under Section 1(4), and exclusion of Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs under Section 2(16), amounted to hostile discrimination under Article 14. They argued that earlier regional enactments had applied to maths and to institutions of Jains and Sikhs, and that the State had failed to justify their exclusion while claiming to enact a uniform law.

It was also argued that several provisions violated Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The appellants challenged Sections 9 to 16 relating to archaks and temple servants, on the ground that the act disregarded hereditary rights. They assailed Sections 17 to 19 which created a Common Pool Fund requiring notified institutions to contribute five per cent of their gross annual income contending that it amounted to tax without authority of law. Provisions relating to the Advisory Committee headed by the Minister in charge of Endowments were also assailed as permitting excessive State control.

The State contended that the Act was regulatory in nature. It submitted that the Act did not interfere with observance of customs, usage, ceremony and practice. The State contended that maths were not covered since the Mathadhipathi stood on a different footing. It contended that the exclusion of Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs was based on reasonable classification. It argued that regulation of secular administration of religious institutions was permissible and that the scope of judicial review over such legislation was limited.

The Division Bench of the High Court held that the exclusion of maths and denomination temples lacked justification and defeated the stated objective of uniform legislation.

The court also held that exclusion of Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs from the definition of “Hindu” was discriminatory, particularly since earlier enactments had governed their institutions. It found that the State had not placed material to justify the classification.

On Articles 25 and 26, the High Court observed that while regulation of secular administration was permissible, the provisions such as compulsory contribution to the Common Pool Fund based on gross income, and blanket application of takeover provisions without adverse findings of mismanagement, infringed the right to administer religious institutions.

The Division Bench concluded that the Act was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 26. Holding that the offending provisions could not be severed from the Act, the High Court struck down the entire Act and the notification issued under it.

The Supreme Court has now reserved judgment in the State's appeal against that ruling.

Case no. – C.A. No. 5924/2008

Case Title – State of Karnataka v. Sahasra Lingesshwara Temple