‘Leave Temple To Religious People’: Supreme Court Dismisses AP Govt Challenge To HC Order Against Govt Taking Over Ahobilam Mutt Temple

The Supreme Court, on Friday, refused to entertain Andhra Pradesh Government’s plea assailing High Court’s order, which held that State's decision to appoint 'Executive Officer' to control and manage the affairs of Ahobilam Temple in Kurnool is violative of A. 26(d) of the Constitution and affects the Mathadipathi’s right of administration.The State’s plea came up for hearing before a Bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice A.S. Oka. The Bench was not convinced why the State should interfere in matters of a temple. Justice Kaul asked Counsel for the State, Senior Advocate, Mr. Niranjan Reddy, “Why are you stepping into that?..."After hearing him briefly, the Judge did not seem to be persuaded. He noted - “Let the temple people deal with it...Why should religious places not be left to religious people?”.Senior Advocates Satish Prasaran, C .Sridharan, Advocate Vipin Nair appeared for devotees on caveat.A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had made it abundantly clear that the Temple is an integral part of the Ahobilam Mutt, which is situated in Tamil Nadu. The contention raised by the State Government that the temple and Mutt were distinct entities was refused. The Court noted that merely because the Mutt and the Temple were situated in different geographical locations - one in Tamil Nadu and the other in Andhra Pradesh, the temple does not cease to be a part of the Mutt. Referring to historic books, literature and archeological data, the High Court had concluded that the Temple and the Mutt were founded and administered by the Mathadipathis since time immemorial. The High Court observed that the general power of supervision and control of Mutt is not given to the State and its affairs should be sparingly interfered with and on cogent grounds like mismanagement etc. In the facts of the case, the Court noted, no material on record supports the appointment of Executive Officer. The Division Bench also took note of the fact that right from the Endowments Act, 1927, the Temple has been under the management of Mathadipathis, whose nomination was neither vested in nor exercised by the Government. The original petitioner’s (devotees) case was that under AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act the State Government does not have the authority to appoint the Executive Officer for either the Mutt or the Temple. Reliance was placed upon Chapter V of the Act to submit that the Maths are given a special status and the right to manage their affairs. Moreover, it was pointed out that, in 2014, the State Government had itself recognised that there is no practice for appointment of a non-hereditary trustees to the temple.Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy appeared for State of AP.Senior Advocate Satish Prasaran, Senior Advocate C.Sridharan, Advocates PB Suresh and AoR Vipin Nair Appeared for Ahombilam Mutt[State of AP And Ors. v. Ahobila Mutt Parampara Adhena Shri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam SLP(C) No. 1538-1540/2023]

‘Leave Temple To Religious People’: Supreme Court Dismisses AP Govt Challenge To HC Order Against Govt Taking Over Ahobilam Mutt Temple

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags