 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
Hindu are not a denomination, section or sect under the
Constitution. Hence Hindus as a community cannot under Article 26
of the Constitution claim the fundamental right of a denomination
to maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes, to
manage their own affairs in matters of a religion; to own and
acquire movable and immovable property and to administer such
property in accordance with law.
Like all other persons in India Hindus have the fundamental right
under Art. 25 of Constitution to freely profess, practice and
propagate their religion subject to the laws regulating economic,
financial, political or other secular activity as also laws
providing for social reform as also throwing open of Hindu
religious institutions of a public character to all classes of
Hindus.
The Supreme Court has held this in the case of Adi Visheshwara of
Kashi Vishwanath Temple vs Uttar Pradesh while holding that the
"clarion call of the Constitution" is for unity among the various
castes, sub castes sects and sub sects into which the Hindus are
"unfortunately disintegrated".
On this meaning of the Constitution Justices K. Ramaswamy, IC
Venkataswami and G. B. Pattanaik have laid down two.
Far reaching propositions for Hindu temples and religious
institutions. Public Hindu temples have a secular and a religious
component. The management of such temples, their properties and
endowments falls in the secular area. Hence legislatures or ruling
politicians can enact a law to ensure that management is conducted
in consonance with the principles of the, Constitution. Such
management is not the property of ereditary mahants, pandas or
archakas. If a law like the U.P Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act,
1983 vests the properties in the deity and entrusts the management
to a Board of Trustees consisting of persons qualified in Hinduism
and experienced in the knowledge of the temple, while providing for
public participation, then it is a valid law. The mahants, pandas
and archakas are not entitled to any compensation since tey are the
servants of the temple and not the owners of its properties.
Moreover the State has not taken over the property or the
management but only vested it in a Board of Trustees duly qualified
for the management of that temple.
Second, legislatures or ruling politicians can enact a law even for
proper management of the religious aspect of a temple so long as
the law does not interfere with the religious practices, rituals
and observances that are integral parts o religion.
What is essential, intrinsic or integral part will be determined by
the courts on evidence adduced by the party making such a claim.
Two indicative but not conclusive factors for deciding this are:
what the doctrine, tenets, historical background and the chage
processes involved from modem to vedic Hinduism state as also
whether the practices, rituals or observance are considered
integral by the community itself. This includes the issue whether
the priest (mahant, panda or archaa) is an integral part of the
religious practice. The law is valid if it ensres through a Board
of Trustees and is Chief Executive Officer proper performance of
these integral practices including the selection of duly qualified
archaka.
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|