Allowed

Sri K P Rupesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2024WP/13108/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an order permitting a 13-day festival as it violated established 12-day traditions under Section 58 of the 1997 Act. The court directed non-discriminatory ticket issuance and prohibited caste-based rituals.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Brahmaratotsava limited to 12 days; tickets issued on first-come basis without caste discrimination; caste-based rituals prohibited.

Sri K P Rupesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.13108 OF 2019 (GM-R/ **_C_* )

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. K.P. RUPESH KUMAR, SON OF LATE PADMANABHA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.104/2, PRITCHARD ROAD, ROBERTSONPET, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS, KOLAR DISTRICT-563122

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560001

¶12

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101.

¶13

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR-563 101.

¶14

4 . THE TAHSILDHAR ROBERTSONPET HOBLI, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS, KOLAR-563 122.

¶15

*Corrected vide Chamber Order dated 25.03.2024.

¶16

¶17

5 . THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER PRASANNA VENKATESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 122

¶18

SREE VENKATARAMANA SWAMY GOLDEN CHARIOT TRUST, RPTD., BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. Y. SAMPANGI, S/O YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OFFICE AT: 1^ST CROSS ROAD, ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F.-563122.

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT, 4^TH FLOOR, MINTO SREE ANJANEYA BHAVAN, ALURU VENKATA RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE-560018 AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE ORDER OF THE HONB'LE COURT DATED 11.07.2023.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MALIND DANGE, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5; SRI. J.C.KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

¶23

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION FOR QUASHING ANNEXURE-N DATED 27.02.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE NO.DVS(1)CR:225/11-12.

¶24

¶25

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 04.12.2023 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner claims to be the legal heir of the family of Sri M. Bhaskaralu Naidu, who consecrated Lord Sri Lakshmivenkateshwara Swamy and Padmavathi Devi and built a temple on his land out of his own earning. The petitioner claimed that Sri M. Bhaskaralu Naidu was performing utsavas to Lord in the temple in the months of Palguna Shudda Ashtami for a period of 9 days which was later extended to 12 days as a karaga festival commenced on 9^th day and ended on the 12^th day. He claimed that these utsavas were conducted in accordance with the Navahika Vaikhanasa Agama which is practiced in Vishnu temple. He claimed that after the death of Sri M.

¶28

¶29

Bhasakarulu Naidu, his son-in-law - Sri B. Bhaskaralu Naidu was performing the ceremonies and poojas in accordance with the tradition followed by the founder. Later, he could not manage the affairs of the temple and entrusted it to the then Government of Mysore in terms of a deed of gift dated 10.12.1936 whereunder Sri B. Bhaskaralu Naidu reserved his right to be the first Dharmadarshi till his death and after his death, one person from his family and another from the family of Sri B. Bhaskaralu Naidu to be appointed as the Dharmadarshi to look after the administration and management of the temple. The petitioner claims that the family members of Sri B. Bhaskaralu Naidu were chosen as the hereditary Utsavadhars to look after the daily poojas and Ratotsava etc. He claims that as per the existing traditions, the utsavas in the temple were conducted for a period of 12 days every year commencing from palguna shudha ashtami. He claims

¶30

¶31

that this tradition was continued even after the temple was handed over to the Government of Mysore. After the formation of the State of Karnataka, the traditions and customs in the temple were followed by the Department of Muzarai as per which the Brahmotsava was conducted for 12 days. In this regard, he has placed on record the hand bills of the Brahmotsava for the years 1973, 1974, 1975 and 2010. He alleged that at the instance of a Member of the Legislative Assembly (M.L.A) and certain politically influential persons, the Deputy Commissioner intended to the change the traditions by permitting the M.L.A to perform the utsavas beyond 12 days. This was opposed by the paternal aunt of the petitioner as it violated the traditions and customs followed in the temple. The respondent No.7 - Commissioner of Endowments after considering the objection, passed an order on 19.02.2010 directing the Deputy

¶32

¶33

Commissioner, Kolar and others not to allow any utsavas in violation of the traditions and customs followed at the temple. The petitioner contends that certain politicians influenced the Commissioner of Endowments to extend the utsavas beyond 12 days by 3 days. The Commissioner of Endowments yielding to such influence held a meeting on 24.02.2015 and assured that appropriate decision would be taken regarding extension of utsava period beyond 12 days after consulting and obtaining the opinion of Rajya Dharmika Parishat. Nonetheless, the Commissioner of Endowments without consulting the Rajya Dharmika Parishat, directed the respondent No.5 to extend the number of utsava days from 12 to 13. This resulted in rivalry amongst politicians to conduct the 13^th day car festival and they approached the Commissioner of Endowments who extended the period of

¶34

Brahmaratotsava from 13 to 14 and 15 days in terms

¶35

¶36

of the order dated 27.02.2015. The petitioner being aggrieved by such arbitrary act, filed W.P No.9587/2015 before this Court. A coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 01.06.2018, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 27.02.2015 and the Commissioner of Endowments was directed to pass appropriate orders afresh keeping in mind the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments At, 1997 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act of 1997’) and the observations made in the order. The petitioner contends that pursuant to the order in the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent No.2 convened a meeting on 19.02.2019 whereat the petitioner sent a reply in writing. Nonetheless, the respondent No.2 again passed an order dated 27.02.2019 permitting the Brahmaratotsava to go beyond 12 days by providing an opportunity to an ex-M.L.A to perform utsava on

¶37

¶38

the 13^th day taking advantage of certain observations made in the order dated 01.06.2018 passed in W.P No.9587/2015.

¶39

The petitioner contends that under Section 58 of the Act of 1997, every person performing functions under the Act shall not interfere with, and shall observe the customs, usages, ceremonies and practices appropriate to the Notified Institution or Declared Institution. He submitted that this Court in the order dated 01.06.2018 passed in W.P. No.9587/2015 had held that the words “shall not interfere” and “shall observe” are mandatory and not directory. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.Adithayan v.

¶40

The Travancore Devaswom Board and others

¶41

[2002 AIR SCW 4146] as well as the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Thiruvenkata Ramanuja Pedda Jiyyangarlu Valu v. Prathivathi

¶42

¶43

Bhayankaram Venkatacharlu and others [A.I.R (34) 1947 Privy Council 53] . Learned counsel contended that when once the order dated 27.02.2015 passed by the Commissioner of

¶44

Endowments was quashed by this Court in W.P. No.9587/2015, he was bound to pass a fresh order restricting the Brahmaratotsava to 12 days. He submitted that the respondent No.2 as well as the exM.L.A have tried to take advantage of certain observations made in the course of the order dated 01.06.2018 in W.P. No.9587/2015 that the experts had opined that Brahmaratotsavam period cannot exceed beyond 13 days. He submitted that it is a practice in the temple that Brahmaratotsava is performed for a period of 12 days only and the respondent No.2 has no authority to extend it beyond 12 days. He therefore prays that the impugned order

¶45

¶46

passed by the respondent No.2 extending the Brahmarratotsava to 13 days be quashed.

¶47

The official respondents filed the statement of objections contending that the Commissioner of Endowments had passed an order dated 27.02.2015 permitting Brahmaratotsava to be performed for three days beyond the 12 days, which was challenged before this Court in W.P No.9587/2015. They claimed that this Court while disposing off the writ petition held “that it is clearly stated by experts that Brahmaratotsavam period cannot exceed beyond 13 days”. Therefore, it is contended that the respondent No.2 taking note of the said observation in the order dated 01.06.2018 in W.P. No.9587/2015, passed the order dated 27.02.2019 permitting the Brahmaratotsava in the temple to be performed on a 13^th day. Therefore, they contend that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Deputy

¶48

¶49

Commissioner. They further contend that this is not the first time that Brahmaratotsava is conducted on the 13^th day as the same was performed since the year 2011. They further contend that the decision to extend Brahmaratotsava to 13 days does not violate

¶50

the Agama Shastra and hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2.

¶51

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has placed on record certain documents, namely, copy of an official memorandum issued by the Commissioner of Endowments dated 10.03.2011 to perform the Brahmaratotsava on 13^th day if there are no other traditional utsavas. Likewise, he has placed on record copy of the letter dated 10.03.2011 addressed by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3 permitting the Brahmaratotsava to be held in the temple on the 13^th day, copy of official

¶52

¶53

memorandum dated 12.01.2012 issued by the

¶54

Commissioner of Endowments and copy of letter dated 04.03.2013 addressed by the Commissioner of Endowments to the respondent No.2. He has also furnished proceedings of the meeting held by respondent No.3 on 15.03.2014, where the Brahmaratotsava was agreed to be held on the 13^th day where the people belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were granted permission to offer prayers. He has also produced a hand bill for the Brahmaratotsava at the temple which commenced on 02.03.2012 and ended on 14.03.2012. Similarly, hand bills for the Brahmaratotsava held between: 21.03.2013 and 02.04.2013; 10.03.2014 and 22.03.2014; 27.02.2015 and 11.03.2015; 17.03.2016 and 31.03.2016; 06.03.2017 and 20.03.2017; 23.02.2018 and 09.03.2018; 14.03.2019 and 26.03.2019; 03.03.2020 and 15.03.2020; 22.03.2021

¶55

¶56

and 03.04.2021; 12.03.2022 and 24.03.2022; and 01.03.2023 and 13.03.2023 are produced. He contends that it has been the practice over the years to conduct the Brahmaratotsava till the 13^th day and therefore, there is no harm in conducting Brahmaratotsava on 13^th day.

¶57

In order to get clarity about the practices followed while performing Brahmaratotsava in Vaishnavite temples, this Court summoned an Archak, well versed in Agamashastra to apprise the Court whether the shastras permit Brahmaratotsava to be performed for 12 days or beyond. In response, he informed the Court that as per the Vaikhanasagama shastra, the utsavas are of three types. 1. Nityotsava 2. Shantyutsava and 3. Shradhotsava. Nityotsavas are performed once every month while Shantyutsava is performed to ward off evil, poverty etc. while Shradhotsavas are performed by the devotee

¶58

¶59

whenever he/she desires. He claimed that as per the Vaikhanasagama shastra, utsavas are performed for 9 days, 7 days and 5 days for the welfare of the nation or the village or the King. These utsavas commence with dhwajarohana and end by the dhwaja avarohana.

¶60

He submits that any utsava conducted after Dhwajaavarohana, would be nityotsavas. He submits that in the temple in question, the Brahmaratotsava was performed for 9 days and Pushpayagotsava was performed on the 10^th day as repentance for any mistake committed. He therefore, contended that as per the utsavas performed in the temple in question, the brahmaratotsava is performed up to 10 days and that the utsavas performed thereafter are treated as Nityotsavas which can be performed.

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶62

reiterated the contentions made in the writ petition and contended that if a practice is followed in a

¶63

¶64

temple, the official respondents cannot tamper or tinker with such practice as that amounted to interference with the practices followed in the temple and thereby would violate section 58 of the Act of 1997. He further contended that this Court in its order dated 01.06.2018 passed in W.P. No.9587/2015 did not even indicate that the Brahmaratotsava can extend up to 13 days but the respondent No.2 misconstrued the order of this Court and allowed the Brahmaratotsava to be performed even on the 13^th day. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 allowing the Brahmaratotsava to be performed on the 13^th day be quashed.

¶65

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶66

on the other hand contended that Brahmaratotsavas

¶67

are being performed in the temple for a period of 13 days from a long time and therefore, no harm would

¶68

¶69

be caused in allowing the same to be continued. This was also voiced by the learned counsel for respondent No.6.

¶70

I have considered the submissions made by

¶71

the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1

¶72

to 5 and learned counsel for respondent No.6.

¶73

It is not in dispute that Brahmaratotsava in

¶74

the temple in question was conducted for a period of 12 days in the month of Palguna Shudda Ashtami as per navahika vaikhanasagama. However, the Commissioner of Endowments unilaterally extended the Brahmaratotsava up to a period of 15 days which was challenged before this Court in W.P. No.9587/2015. This Court in terms of the order dated 01.06.2018 held that the Rajya Dharmika Parishat is required to administer the activities in notified Institutions bearing in mind the religious practices,

¶75

¶76

customs, usage and traditions and for that purpose, it may consult experts to assist in resolving any controversy or dispute that may arise. This Court held that under Section 58 of the Act of 1997, any person exercising any power or performing any functions under the Act “shall not interfere” but “shall observe” the customs, usages, ceremonies and practices appropriate to the Notified Institution or Declared Institution in respect of which such powers are exercised. This Court further held that the temple in question is a ‘B’ category notified Institution and as such, the Commissioner of Endowments could not have passed an order as the appropriate authority is the Deputy Commissioner. This Court held that the experts who were consulted by the Commissioner of Endowments indicated that the Brahmaratotsava cannot exceed 13 days, but there was no reference of any experts of Agama Shastra opining that

¶77

¶78

Brahmaratotsava can be extended contrary to the customs and usage. This Court therefore quashed the order dated 27.02.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Endowments extending the Brahmaratotsava for a period of 15 days and directed the Deputy Commissioner to pass suitable orders in accordance with law.

¶79

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Deputy Commissioner held a meeting on 22.02.2019 which was attended by the Chief Executive Officer of the temple, the petitioner herein, respondent No.6 and the archaks of the temple. The archaks were of the opinion that up to 2010, the Brahmaratotsava was held for 12 days and from the year 2011, the Commissioner of Endowments had granted permission to hold the utsava on the 13^th day if there were no other traditional utsavas performed by the devotees. This was done to ensure participation by the larger

¶80

¶81

public and to maintain harmony. They contended that this continued for several years until a rival group constituted Golden Charitable Trust who insisted on performance of the utsava on the 13^th day. The respondent No.2 without going into the tradition and practices followed in the temple held that the utsava was performed on the 13^th day from the year 2011 and therefore, if it is stopped, it would result in law and order issues. Consequently, he permitted the utsava to continue on the 13^th day.

¶82

If the Agama Shastras provide that the Brahmaratotsava should commence from

¶83

dhwajarohana and end on dhwajaavarohana, the same cannot be tampered with by the official respondents who are only vested with the jurisdiction to administer the notified Institutions under the Act of 1997. A temple cannot be run like an industry, or at the whims and fancies of a skeptic. The Act of 1997

¶84

¶85

too recognises that every pujari or an archak should be well-versed in the Agama Shastras and all sacred performance in the temple should be in accordance with the Agama Shastras. A non-believer or an atheist may deny these practices but it is these practices that draws a believer to the temple. The State Government which has taken temples into its fold to administer them cannot tamper or tinker with the practices ordained under the Shastras. If it is the established practice in the temple to conduct the Brahmaratotsava for 12 days, the respondent No.2 cannot extend it to the 13^th day on the ground that not doing so, would result in law and order problems. This would be in direct conflict with Section 58 of the Act of 1997. Besides this, though the respondent No.2 was required to obtain the opinion of experts before considering the extension of Brahmaratotsava to 13 days, he did nothing but mutely acceded to the

¶86

¶87

request of the group led by the respondent No.6 and extended the Brahmaratotsava for a period of 13 days. This conduct of the respondent No.2 is unacceptable and is a clear violation of the directions of this Court in W.P. No.9587/2015. Therefore, having regard to the opinion of the expert secured by this Court, it is held that henceforth Brahmaratotsava in the temple in question shall be held only for a period of 12 days and not beyond that. However, if the respondent No.2 considers it appropriate to permit any devotee to perform any Nityotsava after the Brahmaratotsava, he may pass appropriate order to that effect.

¶88

A disturbing fact is noticed by this Court where the respondent No.2 has allowed devotees from identified castes to perform certain rituals and poojas in the temple in question. The hand bills and pamphlets placed on record by the respondent No.6

¶89

¶90

bear testimony to the above fact. It is rather a matter of great shame that the State authorities have patronized caste even in temples, unmindful of the Constitutional embargoes and also unmindful of the fact that everyone is equal in the hall of God. It is disgraceful that we haven’t learnt this even after the Lord broke down the wall to give darshan to Sri Kanaka Dasa at Udupi and at various places where similar such events have happened. It is not the caste of men but the state of mind of men that attracts divinity. Therefore, this Court considers it appropriate to issue directions to the respondent No.2 not to henceforth allow any ceremonies or poojas or rituals to be performed by any group of people on the basis of caste. In order to ensure this, the respondent No.2 shall issue suitable number of tickets for each service to the Lord and Goddess in the temple to all devotees on a non-discriminatory basis and on a first-come,

¶91

¶92

first-served basis. The proceeds of such tickets shall be used for the performance of Brahmaratotsava and other Nityotsavas.

¶93

The way in which the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order, generates an impression that he has yielded to the pressure exerted by local groups and therefore, this Court considers it appropriate to dispose off the writ petition by giving appropriate directions rather than remitting the matter back to the respondent No.2.

¶94

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed off on the following terms:

¶95

i. The impugned order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 is set aside;

¶96

ii. It is declared that henceforth Brahmaratotsava in the temple in question shall be held for a period of 12 days;

¶97

¶98

iii. If there are no other utsavas, thereafter, nityotsavas such as Pushpapallaki utsava, Mutyala mantapa utsava, Chinna ratotsava, Pushpa Mantapotsava, Davana

¶99

Mantoptsava and Brundavanotsava may be performed on the subsequent dates;.

¶100

iv. The respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 shall ensure that no services are offered by the devotees on the basis of caste, creed or colour;

¶101

v. The respondent No.5 shall issue appropriate number of tickets for each utsava during the Brahmaratotsava and such tickets shall be issued on first-come, first-served basis without any discrimination and the proceeds shall be utilized for the activities of the Brahmaratotsava; and

¶102

¶103

vi. It is open for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to regulate the manner and performance of Nityotsavas after the Brahmaratotsava which too shall be on a non-discriminatory basis.

¶104

In view of disposal of this appeal, I.A. No.1/2023 for additional grounds does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.

Sd/JUDGE

sma

W.P.NO.13108/2019

¶109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶110

[SRI K P RUPESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS]

¶111

RNJ

¶112

15.03.2024 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶113

ORDER ON ‘FOR BEING SPOKEN TO’

¶114

Learned counsel for the petitioner has moved this petition to rectify an inadvertent error in the order dated 02.02.2024, in not issuing the direction to respondent No.7. The submission is noted and is accepted.

¶115

Hence, in the order dated 02.02.2024 at page No.24, Sl.No.iv, it shall be read as “ the respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 shall ensure that no services are offered by the devotees on the basis of caste, creed or colour ” and the direction at Sl.No.vi at page No.25 shall be read as “ It is open for the respondents Nos.2 and 7 to regulate the manner and performance of Nityotsavas after the Brahmaratotsava which too shall be on a nondiscriminatory basis ”.

¶116

¶117

This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 02.02.2024.

¶118

Sd/JUDGE

¶119

GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri K P Rupesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K P Rupesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jumma Masjid Malalipete Vs Sri Dhananjay

Kumari Deepika Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Nagaveni Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs G Chitra Poornima Vs State by

Smt. Naina Lal Kidwai Vs M/S Lisa Apparels Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. Kadekan Prakash Kamath Vs Sri. Vitobha Rukma Bai Devara Bhandaram