Supreme Court Reserves Order On Interim Relief In Gokarna Mahabaleshwar Temple Management Case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order for interim relief in the appeal filed challenging Karnataka High Court's judgment of 2018 which quashed the Government's order handing over management of Mahabaleshwar temple at Gokarna to Ramchandrapura Math. A three-judge Bench of CJI Bobde, Justice Bopanna and Justice Ramasubramanian clarified that it will only pass interim orders in the present case at the present stage.During the hearing today, Sr Adv Vikas Singh on behalf of intervenors submitted that there is an IA for intervention with regards to constitutional validity of vires of the main act, the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. While referring to an appeal filed by State of Karnataka, Singh stated that that plea ideally should be decided first. Singh, appearing for the devotees stated that the Act itself has been set aside by the High Court, and the Supreme Court had earlier granted a stay on that order. The Act is therefore surviving on an interim order, and if act itself goes nothing will remain. The Bench observed that it sees the point in Singh's argument, as it is deciding the present matter based on principle of presumption of constitutional validity of a statute. But since the Bench has gone so far in this matter with the arguments, it is not appropriate to wait for other matters to be connected. "The dispute that the High Court has highlighted is whether the Math is attached to the Temple, and if the Temple belongs to the math, and it is a basic fact that it is not a matter that can be decided by civil court and by authority under the Karnataka Act. This is what has been held by the High Court and they are inclined to hear it", the Bench observed The Bench observed that if submissions made by Senior Counsel Vikas Singh and others are correct, it may pass an interim order instead. Senior Advocate AM Singhvi however opined that passing an interim order, when an interim order has already been issued, may not be the right thing to do. Singhvi then made submission regarding the Analysis of Act, and the clear threshold exclusionary ambit of 1(4) of the Act. He stated that when an Act says nothing shall apply, the idea is to have a threshold exclusion, and the anchor of that act is 1(4). Clearly this was an act intended certain classes to be per se excluded. His second submission was that it was an extraordinary case as the High Court in PIL and private petitions filed, where all persons involved were relatives of present respondent Mr Dixit. "We'd not like to decide this matter based on personal character of people involved" CJI said. Singhvi further said that he is making a legal submission, that impugned order could not passed and it is jurisdictionally impermissible. One of this court's most hallowed principles is that, PIL cannot be based on personal, political and private interest, and in the case he also said 'paisa vasool' interest. 'The impugned order could not have been passed in the so called PIL' Singhvi said. He further submitted that apart from this Act, Section 23 the General clauses Act of Karnataka, allows to notify to de notify. The notification under Section 23 was on 30th April 2003, and Act came into force on 1st May 2003. The Bench then asked Dr Singhvi, whether this was a public temple under Bombay trust act for 50-60 years at least and Entry under the Bombay act was adopted under Karnataka Act when it was first notified. What was the change in facts that caused reversal in entry, the bench sought to know. "Was it not a Temple under Bombay Public Trust Act?" the Bench asked "It was notified as an institution" Dr Singhvi answered "No you are not correct. It was Notified as public temple under Bombay Public Trust Act, those entries remained when Karnataka act came into force, it was notified as a Public temple. We are asking you about the change that took place in the facts, and not law that the Temple was denotified." CJI said Singhvi responded and stated that whatever it was under Bombay Trust Act, now there is a notification under a statute whose opening provision says that there shall be an exclusion. Dr Singhvi stated "My question to myself is how can you apply statutory mandate of an Act which doesn't have a similar or remotely similar exclusion. Its an important jurisdictional point, there is no equivalence between Bombay act and the 1997 act." The 1997 Act being referred to here is the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. He added that there are established historical facts showing that there is a math with a temple and the State's counter in High Court gives in great detail the historical facts again. Singhvi remarked that how can it be denied Math ...

Supreme Court Reserves Order On Interim Relief In Gokarna Mahabaleshwar Temple Management Case

Srishti Ojha

Tags