Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea To Stop Non-Hindus From Working In Offices Under Hrice Act

"Hindu religion was never so narrow. Hindu religion as professed never consisted of people who are so narrow minded."

PETITIONS FILED

• The Karnataka High Court on 14th December dismissed writ petitions which sought for directions that non-Hindus should not be permitted to work in the office of Commissioners under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act (HRICE Act).

• The two petitions which were filed sought strict implementation of Section 7 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, thereby, seeking that no person who is not professing Hindu religion be permitted to work in the office of Commissioner appointed under the said Act.

• First petition was filed by N P Amruthesh, questioning the printing of the name of A B Ibrahim, who was working as deputy commissioner with the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Department, Mangaluru, on the invitation card of the annual festival organized by the Mahalingeswara Temple.

• The second petition filed by Bharata Punarutthana Trust objected to the appointment of Mohamad Deshav Alikhan as the Superintendent in the office of the Commissioner under the Act.

DECISION

• Division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty was amazed on reading the prayer in the petition filed by Amruthesh, which sought directions to restrain the deputy commissioner from entering the temple.

• It was verbally observed that what heavens are going to fall if respondent 4 being the Deputy Commissioner, for overlooking the arrangements will enter the temple. Hindu religion was never so narrow. Hindu religion as professed never consisted of people who are so narrow minded. Court also added that there are instances, go all over the country, where in big Hindu festivals, the government officers who do not profess Hindu religion have actively assisted the administration".

• Taking a strong objection on maintainability of the petitions as Public Interest Litigations, Chief Justice Oka addressed that After the Constitution has come into force, we will never entertain such petitions in the court. There is something known as the Constitution, there is something known as Constitutional philosophy.

• As the petition quoted section 7 of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act (HRICE Act) which says: Commissioner, etc. to be Hindu. - The Commissioner and every Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner and every other Officer or servant, appointed to carry out the purposes of this Act by whomsoever appointed, shall be a person professing Hindu Religion, and shall cease to hold office as such when he ceases to profess that religion.

BENCH’S POINT OF VIEW

• The bench noted that after plain reading of section 7, there is no general prohibition on appointing an officer or servant to work in the offices of commissioner, deputy commissioner or assistant commissioner. The restriction imposed by section 7 is that Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Asst Commissioner and every officer or servant appointed to carry out purposes of the said act of 1997, shall be a person professing Hindu religion.

• Bench concluded that to decide whether the prohibition under Section 7 is applicable, it is necessary to consider the nature of duties assigned to the officer concerned. Judicial notice will have to be taken of the fact that government officers, police officers, irrespective of their religious faith and beliefs effectively assist all religions in celebrating their respective religious festivals. In fact, that is part of the Constitutional philosophy and concept of Secularism.

• The bench ultimately thus refused to grant any relief and dismissed the petitions.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS? LET US KNOW YOUR VIEWS IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!