Government Taking Over Ahobilam Mutt Temple Is Violative Of Article 26(D): High Court Of Andhra Pradesh

CASE TITLE:
Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

DATE OF ORDER:
13 October 2022

JUDGES:
Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice DVSS Somayajulu

PARTIES:
Petitioner: Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara
Respondent: The State of Andhra Pradesh

SUBJECT

According to the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the State’s choice to name a “Executive Officer” to oversee and manage the business of Kurnoo’s Ahobilam Temple violates Article 26(d) of the Constitution and interferes with the Mathadipathis’ power to administer the temple. The Ahobilam Math, which is located in Tamilnadu, and the Temple are both fundamental parts of that institution, according to the division bench composed of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice DVSS Somayajulu.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Constitution of India

• Section 26 - Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right - (d) to administer such property in accordance with law.

BRIEF FACTS

• While the Ahobilam Temples are situated in the Kurnool District of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Ahobilam Math has its headquarters in Tamil Nadu.
• The petitioners’ fundamental argument is that the Temple and the Math are intertwined given the history, tradition, practises, etc. of this particular Temple and the Math. In contrast, the respondents assert that the Math and the Temple are separate, distinct, and situated in two different States.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether Ahobilam Temple is a part and parcel of the Ahobilam Math?
• Whether Gazetteers, travelogue books and other historical documents can be treated as evidence by the Court?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER

• The PIL’s writ petitioner’s knowledgeable senior attorney contends that the state’s authority to name an executive officer for the Ahobilam Temple is at the heart of the entire controversy. As per the Endowments Act (30/87), learned senior counsel claims that the State lacks the ability to name the Executive Officer for the Math or Temple.
• According to the learned counsel, the Mathadipathi’s standing and independence are intended to be removed by the appointment of an Executive Officer.He asserts that this action aims to revoke the Matahdhipathi’s administrative authority. He contends that the Math and the Temple are actually intertwined and have existed as a single, fundamental entity for all of time. He makes the point that the Ahobilam Math, which is currently based in Tamil Nadu, and the Temple in Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, are not different and distinct entities. Both are, in his opinion, a cohesive totality.
• Learned senior counsel claims that the 46th Mathadipathi, who has been running the Temple and the Math, is the present leader. He emphasises that the Mathadhipathis are known as “Satagopa Jeeyar” in tradition.
• The learned counsel argues that Section 2(10) also defines the location of religious observance adjacent to the Math. He uses legal precedent, among other things, to support his claim that “appurtenant” does not always mean adjacent or contiguous, and that the concept still holds true even if the Math is located in Tamil Nadu and the Temple is in Andhra Pradesh. Additionally, he argues that the provisions of Sections 38 to 51 of the Act do not apply to the matter at hand and that the appointment of an Executive Officer or any other Officer can only be made under specific, justified conditions, such as mismanagement.
• He submits that the situation has not changed, even under the current Act 30 of 1987, and that only very specific circumstance - none of which apply in this instance - allow for interference with the Math’s operations. He emphasises that the nomination of an executive officer is not supported by any criteria, such as poor management or renunciation of Hinduism. He draws attention to the fact that the State’s appointment of an Executive Officer is a clear violation of Article 26 and the rights it protects.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• For the respondents, the Learned Advocate General made a thorough argument. He makes the point that the Executive Officer in this case was appointed a long time ago and that the action is now being contested after much time has passed. The Ahobilam Math and the Temple are two different and distinct entities, according to the learned advocate general. It is noted that while the Temple is located in Andhra Pradesh, the Math is in the State of Tamil Nadu. As a result, the Temple is subject to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act.
• He asserts that the Act’s provisions are directly relevant and that the respondent-State is qualified to name an Executive Officer for the temple.The learned advocate general also notes that from 1987 onward, proper notice was also sent under Section 6 of the Endowments Act as the Temple’s income exceeded the specified statutory limits. Subsequently, the classification of the Temple was revised based on its income and other information. Therefore, he claims that the State’s action cannot be blamed. He consequently defends the State’s course of conduct and asks that the writs be denied.

JUDGMENT ANALYSIS

• This Court must conclude that the books, literature, and archaeological material do support the petitioners’ claim that the temple and math were founded and were run by the Mathadipathis for all of recorded history in light of the undisputed facts and the case law.
• The Court takes note of the fact that the Ahobilam Math and Ahobilam Temple once belonged to the combined State of Madras. The contemporary historical epistolary and literary works demonstrate that the Pontiffs founded and oversaw the Temple. This reality must not be overlooked. It is also significant to remember that the Ahobilam Math, which is presently located in Tamil Nadu, is named after the temple, which is located in the Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh. It just goes by the name “Ahobila Math,” yet it is in charge of numerous temples all over India.
• Furthermore, it is evident from the evidence that the State has not claimed that the Sampradaya, or religious activities, observed in the Math and the Temple are entirely different. This Court must rule that the Temple in the State of Andhra Pradesh is a fundamental component and part of this Math in the absence of any such evidence to demonstrate that the same Sampradaya or practises are not being adhered to in the Math and Temple. It is emphasised once more that no evidence is shown to suggest that the traditions, customs, practises, or sampradaya of the temple are dissimilar from those of the Math.
• The Ahobilam temple is described as a 6 (c) institution in the current instance. However, it is expressly stated in section 29 of the Act that it is not necessary to nominate an Executive Officer for a facility listed on the 6(c) list. Math is covered in detail in Chapter V of the Act. It is made very plain in Section 48 of the Act that some Chapter III sections do not apply to “Maths.” In terms of the removal of Mathadipathis, the Dharmika Parishad now has the authority to do so on a number of predetermined grounds that are listed in section 51. On the basis of the former law on the subject, it is also noted in the aforementioned case that the State cannot assert any power or authority to assume control of the management of the Math by promoting religious schemes, functions of the "Math." It was decided that the Court only has the authority to take action under Section 51 of the Act in instances of mismanagement, misconduct, etc.
• Legally speaking, it is obvious that the assumption of full responsibility violates the constitutional protection under Article 26. In fact, it appears that the first appointment of a person referred to as the Executive Officer was made in 1961 when the State’s records are inspected. A closer look at the record, though, reveals an opposing viewpoint.
• In the present instance, the Court determines that neither a law provision nor a norm supports the posting of a government employee in the Ahobilam Temple. Although there has been some delay in the challenge to this appointment, the reality remains that this position of Executive Officer is inherently against the 1966 Act’s or a later Act’s requirements. As a result, this Court cannot approve the abovementioned decision on the basis of mere delay because, in our opinion, it is invalid from the start and violates a constitutional right protected by Article 26 of the Indian Constitution.

CONCLUSION

The Court held that the Ahobilam Math, which was founded in order to spread Sri Vaishnavism and the Hindu religion, includes the Ahobilam Temple as an essential and inseparable component. Since it interferes with the Jeeyars’/Mathadipathis’ right to administration, the appointment of an Executive Officer for the Temple, which is a component of the Math, violates Article 26(d) of the Indian Constitution. The court granted all of the writ petitions and ruled that the State of Andhra Pradesh lacks the legal right, authority, or jurisdiction to name an executive officer of Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara. It also ruled that the appointment of the third respondent as executive officer pursuant to the proceedings was unlawful and was, therefore, quashed.No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE