SC reserves verdict on appeal against Karnataka HC decision of striking down Karnataka Hindu Endowments Act: Read how the law violated the Constitution

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (11th February) reserved judgment in an appeal filed by the Karnataka government challenging a 2006 Karnataka High Court verdict which struck down the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. A bench of Justice P B Narasimha and Alokh Aradhe was hearing the appeal, which was filed by the Congress-JDU coalition government in Karnataka seeking reversal of the High Court decision and upholding the Act.

The 1967 Act was struck down in its entirety by the Karnataka High Court in September 2006 on the ground that it violated Articles 14 and 26 of the Constitution. The High Court, however, held that its decision to strike down the Act would operate prospectively, and thus protect the actions taken under the Act.

The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, was enacted by the then Congress government in Karnataka with the stated objective of fulfilling “a long-standing public demand to bring about a uniform law to provide for the regulation of all Charitable Endowments and Hindu Religious Institutions in the State.”

The Act replaced a bunch of earlier laws that regulated Hindu religious institutions and charitable endowments across the state. Before the Act was passed, several distinct statutes regulated the Hindu religious institutions and charitable endowments. Charitable Endowments and Hindu Religious Institutions, which were earlier governed by the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, and the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, came to be governed by the 1967 Act.

It also repealed the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, the Coorg Temple Funds Management Regulation, 1892, the Mysore (Karnataka) Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927, and the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations, 1349F, the Renuka Yellamma Devasthana (Administration) Act, 1974, and the Coorg Temples Fund Management Act, 1956.

The 1967 Act applied to Hindu religious institutions and charitable endowments, but it 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. Besides, it excluded Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs from the definition of Hindus.

How the case came up before the Supreme Court

Several writ petitions were filed before the Karnataka High Court questioning the constitutional validity of the Act and the notifications issued under it. A Single Bench of the High Court upheld the Act in a judgment dated September 9, 2005. The decision of the Single Bench was challenged before a Division Bench of the High Court. The appellants argued that the exclusion of maths and denomination temples under the Act and the exclusion of Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs from the definition of Hindus under the Act amounted to discrimination under Article 14. They added that the earlier statutes applied to the maths and to institutions of Jains and Sikhs as well, and that the state failed to justify the exclusion under the 1997 Act.

The state government, on the other hand, argued that the 1997 Act was regulatory in nature and that it did not interfere with the observance of any customs, usage, ceremony and practice. It justified the exclusions under the 1997 Act as being based on a reasonable classification. The state government’s contentions were not accepted by the Division Bench of the High Court. In September 2006, the Division Bench held that the exclusion of maths and the denomination of temples lacked justification and defeated the stated objective of uniform legislation. The High Court struck down the entire legislation, and criticised the state government for attemtping to further divide the already fragmented Hindu religion.

Observations of the Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court examined two essential arguments put forward by the appellants with respect to the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. The first argument was that the Act discriminated in the matter of applicability, by excluding maths and the Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs and thus violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The second argument was that the Act violated the religious rights guaranteed in terms of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. (118)

With respect to the first argument, the Court explained that Article 14 of the Constitution permitted reasonable classification by the state, provided it satisfied the two tests laid down by the Supreme Court. The two tests were: (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) that differentiae must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The court further explained that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration.

Exclusion of Maths and religious denomination temples from the application of the 1997 Act

After analysing the Act in the light of Article 14, the High Court observed that even though the statement of objects and reasons of the Act states that it is “uniform law” to govern Hindu religious institutions and charitable endowments, the state has failed to justify the exclusion of maths and religious denomination temples from the purview of the Act. “That being the object, the State ought to have enacted a uniform law in terms of the statement of objects, but in the guise of uniform religion law to the State, the State has chosen to exclude a Math or temple attached thereto for the purpose of applicability of the Act,” the High Court stated.

“Though math may stand slightly different footing from that of a temple administration in terms of religious practice/rituals, etc., but still the basic objective of religion and religious activities is being carried on in Hindu maths also. Temples are controlled, governed and managed by the maths in some cases,” the Court noted, adding that “reasonable classification is permissible, but the State has to satisfy that the classification being reasonable in the case at hand. At the cost of repetition, we would say that a state of religious institutions which were otherwise governed by the earlier local acts now stands totally excluded, and no law governs these maths.”

The High Court said that the 1997 Act failed to fulfil the objective of better management and administration of Hindu religious institutions by excluding the maths and thus violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court held that the inapplicability of the Act to a Hindu Religious institution or a charitable Endowment founded, organised, run or managed by a Hindu religious denomination is also hit by Article 14. Citing several precedents, the High Court said that religious denomination temples do not in any way stand on a different footing than the other Hindu temples.

Exclusion of Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs from the definition of ‘Hindus’ under the 1997 Act

The Division Bench of Justices R Gururajan and CR Kumaraswamy criticised the exclusion of Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs from the definition of Hindus under the Act. The court said that such an exclusion directly went against the Constitution, which recognised the Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs as part of the Hindu fold. It pointed out that the personal laws governing Hindus also apply to the Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. Besides, the court highlighted that the Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs were being governed as Hindus by the earlier local acts replaced by the 1997 Act.

“The Constitution has recognised the Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, forming part of Hindus, and their institutions are also construed to be as Hindu religious institutions. Even the personal laws in terms of Hindu law of succession, Hindu succession Act, Hindu adoption and maintenance, etc., would not exclude Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists, and on the other hand, the Hindu personal laws are equally made applicable to Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists,” the Division Bench said.

“At this stage, we must again reiterate that Jains and Sikhs were also governed by the earlier local acts as Hindus, and now they have been totally excluded while framing a uniform law in terms of the impugned legislation. Learned Single Judge, in our view, has not properly appreciated the impact of Article 14 in the matter of exclusion of Sikhs, Jains, etc., for the purpose of Article 14 of the Constitution,” the Court added.

“In fact, at this stage, we must also notice that there is no request also from Jains, Sikhs, etc., to exclude them on the ground of differences, if at all, as sought to be argued before us. The state cannot justify this exclusion in this manner without any foundation whatsoever. We cannot help but observe that the Hindu religion is already divided by way of castes and subcastes. Now tha State also wants to divide Hindus by excluding Jaing, Sikhs in terms of a Statute,” the Court sternly remarked.

The 1997 Act violates Constitutional provisions

The appellants challenged the provisions relating to the appointment of archakas and servants (Sections 9-16) and the establishment of the Common Pool Fund (Sections 17-19) under the 1997 Act as being in contravention of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The appellants argued that the 1997 Act puts some restrictions in terms of the service condition of the archakas and servants, thereby affecting their hereditary/religious rights. Regarding the establishment of the Common Pool Fund, the appellants argued that it would interfere with the administration of the temple. They further contended that the appointment of the Minister as Chairman of the Advisory Committee would result in the politicisation of temple affairs.

Under the 1997 Act, the Common Pool Fund was to be created out 5%-10% the gross annual income of the concerned temples and was to be used for Hindu religious activities and charitable purposes. The appellants argued that this would violate the right of Hindus to manage their own religious institutions and would impose an arbitrary financial burden on the temples.

Regarding the provisions related to the appointment of archakas and servants, the High Court held that they were not in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. However, regarding the Common Pool Fund, the court remarked that a Hindu religious institution cannot be compelled to provide funds to poor institutions of other religions.

Additionally, the court said that taking the fixed amount of money out of the total income of a temple would make it difficult to manage temple expenses. “If 5% is taken from the gross annual turnover, it may be difficult to manage the temple and meet the expenses. Even the administration of the Cammon Fool Fund is in the hands of the Commissioner. Laudable objects are provided in the matter of the administration of gommen pool fund. But a careful reading of certain purposes would show that the said purpose seems to be arbitrary in character,” the High Court said.

“It cannot be forgotten that money is taken out of the Hindu temple. Money is poured by Hindus. It may be a laudable object to provide to a poor institution of other religions. But it cannot be only from the funds of the Hindu temple alone. The State has to provide such assistance as is necessary to such institutions, but there can be no compulsion only from the Hindu temple to provide assistance to such institutions,” the Court added.

“This Court is not for a moment suggesting that poor institutions of other religions are not to be helped, but who is to help is the question and how to help those institutions. After all, devotees of Hindu temples provide kanike or money to that Hindu temple for temple purposes, and it cannot be spent for other non-Hindu causes without any relevance to the Hindus,” the Court remarked.

After examining the impugned provisions of the 1997 Act, the High Court noted that it was not possible to separate the provisions held to be unconstitutional from the rest of the statute and therefore struck down the entire Act. The High Court called out the state government for trying to divide the Hindu religion in the guise of creating a “uniform law”.

“The State has to draw a balance in maintaining temple discipline/temple administration in terms of the Constitution of India. The State, unfortunately, in the case at hand, in the guise of having a uniform law, has chosen to divide the religion itself in terms of our earlier discussion. Since the very Act is held to be discriminatory in this application, it is not possible to sever other parts, and hence the entire Act has to be struck down as unconstitutional, and we do so in the case at hand. We also deem it proper to observe that the intention of the Legislature seems to be a uniform law for all Hindu religious institutions,” the court said, striking down the Act.