Temple preservation and management rules were challenged as exceeding the HR&CE Act’s rule-making powers. The court upheld the Rules as intra vires and dismissed the petition, observing that the authorities should revisit outdated provisions and address omissions consistently with earlier temple-management directions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.P.No.17468 of 2016
T.R.Ramesh
... Petitioner in person
vs.
2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, 119, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules, 1964 (G.O.P.No.1837, Revenue dated the 10th July 1964) are ultra vires Section 116(2)(xvii) and 116(2) (xix) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and consequently forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from in any manner carrying out any civil works including construction, renovation, restoration, conservation, repairs etc., inside and adjacent to temple premises and in temple properties till such time the necessary rules as required for the purposes described in Section 116(2)(xvii) and (xix) are framed, notified and such notification is approved by the State Legislature as required under the 1959 Act.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Ramesh as Party-in-person For R1 : Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, AAG assisted Mr.J.Ramesh, AGP For R2 : Mr.M.Karthikeyan, Special Government Pleader (HR&CE)
ORDER
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
As per the administrative order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 30.11.2018, this writ petition was posted along with a batch, relating to the protection, maintenance and sustenance of the ancient temples, idols, temple lands, murals and other places/ articles, which all are of archaeological and historical importance, under the caption 'specially ordered cases' and arguments were heard. However, for better understanding, this Court proceeds to pass separate orders in each of the writ petitions.
2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation to issue a writ of declaration, declaring the Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules, 1964 (G.O.P.No.1837, Revenue dated the 10th July 1964) as ultra vires Section 116(2)(xvii) and 116(2)(xix) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and consequently forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from in any manner carrying out the civil works including construction, renovation, restoration, conservation, repairs etc., inside and adjacent to temple premises and its properties till the necessary rules as required for the purposes described in Section 116(2)(xvii) and (xix) are framed, notified and approved by the State Legislature.
3.It is the case of the petitioner that there are around 44,000 temples in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (in short, 'the HR&CE Dept') is the custodian of the temples and its properties and it is their primary duty to protect, maintain and safeguard the same and to ensure that such temples and endowments are properly administered and the income derived there from is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were founded or exist. However, it failed to do so and is carrying on several activities within the temples including renovation, alteration and construction of the buildings, changing the icons, statues and other objects, without having any authority and in violation of the powers vested under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (for brevity, 'the HR&CE Act').
4.The petitioner further averred that in exercise of the powers conferred under clauses (xvii), (xviii), (xix) and (xxii) of sub section (2) to Section 116 of the HR&CE Act, the Government framed Rules called 'the Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules (for brevity, 'the MPPRI Rules') which was notified by G.O.P.No.1837, Revenue dated
the 10th July 1964. According to the petitioner, the words 'preservation', 'maintenance', 'management' and 'improvement' have not been defined in the HR&CE Act and the powers to make the Rules are only to safeguard, protect and preserve the structures and images found in the temples / Hindu religious institutions in their original or existing forms and not to construct, alter or renovate the temples' buildings. Therefore, the enactment of the said MPPRI Rules are beyond the scope and powers of the clauses (xvii) and (xix) of Section 116(2) of the HR&CE Act.
5.It is also averred by the petitioner that the respondents claiming to act as per the MPPRI Rules framed under the HR&CE Act, have wreaked havoc in heritage temples by destroying and altering the structures, icons, inscriptions, murals and paintings of the same and constructing new sub temples, mantapams, etc. With these averments, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
6.Denying the allegations raised by the petitioner, the second respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit, inter alia stating that they are taking action only to renovate and preserve the ancient heritage temples and its properties by following traditional norms and methods. It is further stated therein that as per Section 116 of the HR&CE Act, the Government is empowered to make rules to carry out the purposes of the said Act and accordingly, the MPPRI Rules have been framed for the purpose of preservation, maintenance, management and improvement of the temples and its properties and therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking declaration to quash the said Rules, exceeding his limit, is liable to be dismissed.
7.The averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent have been adopted by the first respondent.
8.Repudiating the statements made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit in detail, wherein, certain violations of the provisions of the HR&CE Act by the respondent officials have been pointed out, which read thus:
(i)No trustees have been appointed to the temples for the past six years even though Sections 47 and 49 of the HR&CE Act mandate such appointments.
(ii)HR&CE servants functioning as 'Fit persons' of temples is against Section 25A of the HR&CE Act.
(iii)No trustee meetings have been held in the temples for the past 6 years, even though the functioning of the Board of Trustees rules mandates that trustee meetings should take place every month.
(iv)Registers to be prepared and maintained under Sections 30 and 31 of the HR&CE Act have not been prepared at all.
(v)Concurrent audit that needs to be done for all temples having more than Rs.5.00 lakhs as annual income, have not taken place at all.
(vi)Due process that needs to be followed for alienation of temple properties, has not been taken.
(vii)Funds from temples are indiscriminately transferred for non-temple purposes including alien purposes like purchase of vehicles, construction of library for HR&CE Department, contribution to Government Tourism Exhibition etc.
(viii)The respondents never consulted ASI regarding renovation of ancient temples as required under the provisions of the MPPRI Rules for ancient temples including temples like Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam, Sri Ramanathaswamy Temple, Rameshwaram, Sri Adhipureeswarar Temple, Tiruvotriyur, Sri Thiagarajaswamy Temple, Tiruvarur etc.
(ix)Various complaints regarding violations of the heritage aspects of ancient temples and the destruction carried therein, have been made to the second respondent by the devotees and those, who are interested in protection of heritage and antiquity, but no penal action has been taken against any one.
Therefore, according to the petitioner, in the interest of heritage of temples in Tamil Nadu, it is necessary to declare the MPPRI Rules as ultra vires the enabling provisions of the HR&CE Act.
9.Heard all the parties and perused the materials available on record.
10.There cannot be any dispute that the temples are the religious institutions of long standing faith reflecting their ancient heritage. They are the epitome of courage, stand testimony to the evolution and are a symbol of cultural expressions. They are also repositories of knowledge and treasure houses of arts & architecture. Hence, the temples and its properties have to be properly maintained, preserved and protected in order to safeguard the architectural and cultural
values.
11.It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondents have been violating, destroying and altering the heritage structures, icons, inscriptions, murals and paintings of the temples by claiming to act as per the MPPRI Rules framed under the HR&CE Act. They have not obtained necessary approval from the Government for carrying out the civil works including construction, renovation, restoration, conservation, repairs etc., inside and adjacent to the temple premises and its properties. Hence, the MPPRI Rules may be declared as ultra vires the clauses (xvii) and (xix) of sub section (2) to Section 116 of the HR&CE Act.
12.Whereas, according to the learned Additional Advocate General and the Special Government Pleader (HR&CE) appearing for the respective respondents, the MPPRI Rules were framed for the purpose of preservation, maintenance, management and improvement of the properties and buildings of the religious institutions, with architectural, sculptural and archaeological features; their officials are discharging their functions only in accordance with the HR&CE Act and Rules framed thereunder and there are no procedural irregularities in carrying out the renovation and improvement works as alleged by the petitioner. It is also stated that Thiruppani committee has to be formed, wherever the mobilization of funds from the public is necessary; and the renovation / thiruppani works are ordered to be carried out by strictly adhering to the heritage norms. Therefore, the relief sought in this writ petition is tainted with mala fide and the same deserves no merit for consideration.
13.In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it will be necessary to refer to the legal position relating to the issue involved herein. As per Article 49 of the constitution, it is the duty of the State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interest, declared by or under law made by parliament to be of national importance, from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the case may be. Entry 40 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution deals with Archaeological Sites and remains other than those (declared by or under law made by the parliament) to be of national importance. Entry 12 of List II empowers the State to enact laws on Libraries, Museums and other similar institutions controlled or financed by the state; ancient and historical monuments and records other than those declared by or under law made by the Parliament to be of national importance. A conjoint reading of the said entries would reveal that the State is empowered to enact any law in the areas covering ancient and historical monuments, archaeological sites. The exception is that it cannot apply to monuments of
national importance and should not be repugnant with the law made by the Central Government in this regard. Also, Entry 28 of List III of the Seventh Schedule deals with Charities and Charitable Institutions, Charitable and Religious Endowments and Religious Institutions. Therefore, the HR&CE Act enacted on the strength of the said entry, to amend and consolidate the law relating to the administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu, received the assent of the President on 19.11.1959 and it came into force with effect from 28th April, 1960.
14.According to the statement of objects and reasons to the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1991 (Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1991), a Board was created with the Chief Minister of the State at the helm of affairs to take necessary action to protect the ancient and dilapidated temples and it was proposed to entrust the powers of the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant commissioner under the Act, except certain powers of judicial nature, etc. with temple administration Board and District Committees, suitably.
15.Section 23 of the HR&CE Act deals with the power and duties of the Commissioner, as per which, the administration of all temples and all religious endowments shall be subject to the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner, including the power to pass any orders which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such temples and endowments are properly administered and that their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were founded or exist. Further, Section 97 enables the Commissioner to create a common fund through which maintenance of old and needy temples and their buildings and paintings can be carried out.
16.By section 116, which is the subject matter in issue, the Government has been empowered to frame rules and the same is profitably extracted below:
“Section 116.Power to make rules.—(1) The Government may, by notification, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing power, such rules may provide for—
(i)all matters expressly required or allowed by this Act to be prescribed ;
(xvii)the preservation, maintenance, management and
improvement of the properties and buildings of religious institutions including architectural, sculptural and epigraphic features ;
(xviii)the inspection and supervision of the properties and buildings of religious institutions, the reports to be submitted by persons making such inspection and supervision and the fees leviable for such inspection, supervision and report ;
(xix)the preservation of the images in temples ;
(xxii)the preparation and sanction of the estimates and acceptance of tenders, in respect of public works and for supplies in religious institutions;
(3)All rules made and all notifications issued under this Act shall, as soon as possible after they are made or issued, be placed on the table of the Legislative Assesmbly and shall be subject to such modifications by way of amendment or repeal as the Legislative Assembly may make either in the same session or in the next session.”
A perusal of the aforesaid provision would demonstrate that the state is empowered to make rules to carry out the purposes laid down under the HR&CE Act, such as, preservation, maintenance, management and improvement of the properties and buildings of religious institutions including architectural, sculptural and epigraphical features, besides inspection and supervision of the same, preservation of the images in temples and preparation and sanction of the estimates and acceptance of tenders, in respect of public works and for supplies in religious institutions. In exercise of such powers, the first respondent framed the MPPRI Rules for the purpose of management and preservation of the properties of the religious institutions.
17.At this juncture, it is apropos to note down the decision rendered in Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1972) 2 SCC 11], wherein, the supreme court upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1970, with respect to section 116 of the HR&CE Act. The relevant passage of the said decision is reproduced hereunder:
“It was, however, submitted before us that the State had taken power under section 116(2) clause (xxiii) to prescribe qualifications to be possessed by the Archakas and, in view of the avowed object
of the State Government to create a class of Archakas irrespective of caste, creed or race, it would be open to the Government to prescribe qualifications for the office of an Archaka which were in conflict with Agamas. Under Rule 12 of the Madras Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 1964 proper provision has been made for qualifications of the Archakas and the petitioners have no objection to that rule. The rule still continues to be in force. But the petitioners apprehend that it is open to the Government to substitute any other rule for rule 12 and prescribe qualifications which were in conflict with Agamic injunction. For example at present the Ulthurai servant whose duty it, is to, perform, pujas and recite vedic mantras etc. has to obtain the fitness certificate for his Office from the head of, institutions which-impart instructions in Agamas and ritualistic matters. The Government, however, it is submitted, may hereafter change its mind, and prescribe qualifications which take note of Agamas and Agamic rituals and direct that the Archaka candidate should produce a fitness certificate from an institution which, does not specialize in teaching Agamas and rituals. It is submitted, that the Act does not provide guidelines to the Government in the matter of prescribing qualifications with regard to the fitness of an Archaka for performing the rituals and ceremonies in these temples and it will be open to the Government to prescribe a simple standardized curriculum for pujas in the several temples ignoring the tradition pujas and rituals followed in those temples. In our opinion, the apprehensions of the petitioners are unfounded; Rule 12 referred to above still holds the field and there is no good reason to think that the State Government wants to revolutinise temple worship by introducing methods of worship not current in the several temples. The rule making power conferred on the Government by section 116 is only intended with a view to carry out the purposes of the Act which are essentially secular. The Act nowhere gives the indication that one of the purposes of the Act is to effect change in the rituals and ceremonies followed in the terms. On the other hand, section 107 of the Principal Act emphasizes that nothing contained in the Act would be deemed to confer any power or impose any duty in contravention of the rights conferred on any religious denomination or any
section thereof by Article 26 of the Constitution. Similarly section 105 provides that nothing contained in the Act shall (a) save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or the rules made thereunder, affect any honour emolument or perquisite to which any person is entitled by custom or otherwise in any religious institution, or its established usage in regard to any other matter. Moreover, if any rule is framed by the Government which purports to interfere with the rituals and ceremonies of the temples the same will be liable to be challenged by those who are interested in the temple worship. In our opinion, therefore, the apprehensions now expressed by the petitioners are groundless and premature.”
19.The maxim “EX VISCERIBUS ACTUS” means that every part of a statute should be construed with reference to context that comes into foray. A conjoint reading of all the provisions of the HR&CE Act, undoubtedly casts a duty on the department to protect the temple and its properties and for that purpose, section 116 empowers the State to frame rules. In Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras [AIR 1953 SC 274], it was held by the Supreme Court as under:
“it is settled rule of construction that to ascertain the legislative intent, all the constituent parts of a statute are to be taken together and each word, phrase and sentence is to be considered in the light of the general purpose and object of the Act itself”.
20.In N airin v. University of St. Andrews [1909 AC 147], it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows:
“unless there is any ambiguity, it would not be open to the court to depart from the normal rule of construction which is that the intention of the legislature should be primarily gathered from the words which are used”.
21.In Hari Prasad Shivashanker Shukla v. A.D.
Divelkar [AIR 1957 SC 121 ], the Apex Court held as follows:
“It is true that an artificial definition may include a meaning different from or in excess of the ordinary acceptation of the word, which is the subject of definition; but there must then be compelling words to show that such a meaning different from or in excess of the ordinary meaning is intended, where, within the framework of the ordinary acceptation of the word, every single requirement of the definition clause is fulfilled, it would be wrong to take the definition as destroying the essential meaning of the word defined.”
22.In Balram Kumawat v. Union of India, [(2003) 7 SCC 628 : 2003 SCC Online SC 922 at page 634], while dealing with the interpretation of a statute, the Apex Court held as follows:
“20.Contextual reading is a well-known proposition of interpretation of statute. The clauses of a statute should be construed with reference to the context vis-à-vis the other provisions so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute relating to the subject-matter. The rule of “ex visceribus actus” should be resorted to in a situation of this nature”.
23.In State of West Bengal v. Union of India [AIR 1963 SC 1241] (AIR at p. 1265, para 68), the Supreme Court stated the law thus:
“The Court must ascertain the intention of the legislature by directing its attention not merely to the clauses to be construed but to the entire statute; it must compare the clause with the other parts of the law, and the setting in which the clause to be interpreted occurs.”
24.The said principle has been reiterated in R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka [(1992) 1 SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 286 : (1992) 19 ATC 507 : AIR 1992 SC 81] (AIR at p. 89).
25.The law on the point is well settled. The rules are to be framed in conjunction with the object of the Act. The provisions of the HR&CE Act are to be interpreted based on the language and words used in taking into consideration the context and object of the Act. Unless the provisions are ambiguous to the extent that the normal and natural meaning attached to the words cannot be imported, no interpretation or external aid is required. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the words “Preservation”, “maintenance”, “management” and “improvement” are not defined under the HR&CE Act is of no significance and is not a criteria to decide the vires of the rules.
“An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to the administration and governance of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the state of Tamil Nadu”.
27.The object of the enactment is to provide for administration and governance of the religious institutions - temples and its properties. The words “administration and governance” are wide enough to include within its ambit “preservation, maintenance, management and improvement”, which are all nothing but actions that are required to be taken by the authorities to protect the religious institutions and its properties including the structures, idols, murals, paintings in such temples. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the department is not entitled to preserve, maintain, manage or improve the properties of religious institutions, wisely, because any such contention would go against the object and purpose of the Act and against the interest of the religious institutions. Section 116 of the HR&CE Act thus, calls for no interpretation, as it is clear and unambiguous and provides for sufficient guidelines to make the rules. The words used in sub section 2 (xvii) and (xix) are also clear and unambiguous. Their
natural and ordinary meaning is in consonance with the object and context of the Act. Therefore, the State is well within its powers to frame the rules regarding “preservation, maintenance, management and improvement” of the religious institutions and the MPPRI Rules are not beyond the scope and powers conferred under Section 116 (2) (xvii) and (xix) of the Act.
28.That apart, a challenge to a rule is sustainable only if it is in contravention or ultra vires the constitution or the provisions of the Act or when there is no provision under the Act enabling the state to frame the rules or in other words, there is no scope for subordinate legislation. The power to frame the rules, as stated above, is traceable to section 116 of the HR&CE Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that the MPPRI Rules are either infringing the constitutional or fundamental rights as guaranteed under the constitution or contrary to the provisions of the Act. This court also does not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the action of the State to frame the rules. The Rules itself contain various provisions regarding the procedures to be followed in relation to certain activities directed towards the protection of the religious institutions and its properties. The Rules are framed with the intention to safeguard and protect the religious institutions. In fact, the petitioner wants the Rules to be declared as null and void and new Rules to be framed in accordance with the same provisions under which the existing rules are framed, implying, the grievance is not with a rule or the authority to frame the Rules, but to the implementation of it. It is one thing to contend that the Rules are ultra vires but another to contend that it is not implemented properly and that the implementation is not in consonance with the object for which it was framed. The difficulty in implementation or wrongful implementation cannot be a ground to declare the Rules as null and void. Utmost, it can give a right to the aggrieved person to approach the court for redressal of any damage caused by such implementation or action, performed against the interest of the religious institution. It would depend on the facts of the each case.
29.At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy, [(2006) 4 SCC 517 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 339 at page 528]
“Whether the rule is valid in its entirety?
15.There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a subordinate legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recognised that a subordinate legislation can be
challenged under any of the following grounds: (a) Lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate legislation.
(b) Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
(c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India.
(d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act.
(e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment.
(f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where the court might well say that the legislature never intended to give authority to make such rules).
16.The court considering the validity of a subordinate legislation, will have to consider the nature, object and scheme of the enabling Act, and also the area over which power has been delegated under the Act and then decide whether the subordinate legislation conforms to the parent statute. Where a rule is directly inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the statute, then, of course, the task of the court is simple and easy. But where the contention is that the inconsistency or non-conformity of the rule is not with reference to any specific provision of the enabling Act, but with the object and scheme of the parent Act, the court should proceed with caution before declaring invalidity.”
30.The case of the petitioner would not fall under any of the categories as mentioned above. Such being the position in law, this Court is of the opinion that there is no violation of any right as guaranteed under the constitution and the Rules framed are within the scope and powers conferred under the HR&CE Act. Hence, the MPPRI Rules enacted based on the powers conferred under Section 116, is held to be intra-vires. Once the rules or the subordinate legislation is declared as intra-vires, there is no scope for interference.
31.Going further, the violations of the provisions of the HR&CE Act by the respondents, as pointed out by the petitioner in his writ petition as well as rejoinder affidavit, have already been extensively dealt with and as many as 75 directions
were issued to the respondent authorities by this Court in suo motu WP.No.574 of 2015 on 07.06.2021, wherein the rules under challenge were also dealt with. For the sake of understanding, the relevant paragraphs and directions of the said order are extracted below:
“20.The HR&CE Department is the custodian of most of the temples and the properties including the idols belonging to them. It is their primary duty to protect, maintain and safeguard the temples and its valuable idols/antiques, which, this Court with great anguish, expresses that the department has failed to do. The protection of the temples would, without saying, go on to imply protection of the temple lands as well as all the activities associated with the temple and its tradition. It is startling to find that the HR&CE department with all its income from major temples has not been able to maintain historical temples and safeguard the Idols, which in market, have antique value based on their age. Some temples in the state have also been recognised by the UNESCO as heritage sites. Many temples constructed at least 2000 years ago or much before, recognised by UNESCO, are in ruins. Neither the Archaeology Department nor the HR&CE Department has shown interest to identify and protect them. This has also come to the advantage of the miscreants, who have laid their hands on the Idols. Some of the officials are only interested in reaping the benefits of their position in the department, without adhering to the task entrusted to them with devotion.
25.The Commissioner and the officials are duty bound to observe the forms and ceremonies of the institution administered, implying that all the day to day traditional procedures are adhered to. It would also include that the essential works including the resurrection of damaged idols, pillars, paintings, etc. are to be carried out. It is a proven with scientific result that periodical resurrection/renovation decreases the possibility of damage.
26.Section 97 enables the Commissioner to create a common fund through which maintenance of old and needy temples and their buildings and paintings can be carried out. The said provision is usefully extracted below:
“Section 97.Creation of Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Common Good Fund.—(1) It shall be lawful for the Commissioner to create a Fund to be called the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Common Good Fund [hereinafter in this section referred to as the said Fund], out of the contributions voluntarily made by the religious institutions from their surplus funds or by any person for the renovation and preservation of needy temples and their building and paintings, for the promotion and propagation of tenets common to all or any class of religious institutions and for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (1) of section 66.
1-A.The Commissioner may, on a direction from the Government, transfer to the said Fund, any surplus or such portion thereof, as may be specified in the direction, remaining in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Fund after the repayment of the amounts specified in sub-section (2) of section 12 and sub-section (2) of section 96.
(2)The said Fund shall be vested in and such administered by the Commissioner in such manner as may be prescribed.”
It is to be noted here that the word 'temple' would include with it ‘the deity’ and ‘the structures’ in the temple. It is also worthwhile to point out that the funds earned by the temple can be used only for the fulfilment of the objects of this Act spelled in Section 66, including maintenance of the same temple and/or other temples and for propagation of tenets common to all or any class of religious institution. It cannot be diverted or transferred to even other departments or to the state exchequer for any other use. There are many temples in the state which are ruined and unattended; there are many temples, which though ancient and are of spiritual and historical value, do not earn any income; and there are many temples, which have surplus income. It is therefore, the duty of the department to identify those temples, which require adequate and immediate attention including allocation of funds for repair/renovation and for ensuring that the daily rituals are promptly performed.
30.At this juncture, it is needless to state that the properties of the temples/religious institutions belonging to them have to be maintained properly in order to derive more income so as to spend it for the betterment of the temples. The custodians of the temple properties are the trustees, HR&CE department and mutts, who must keep in mind the object and the reason behind such donations made to the temples. The endowments are created and the lands are donated in love, in faith and in satisfaction towards the one’s contribution to the religion they profess, for the temples to be self-sufficient to perform all every day rituals, to ensure that people who profess and practice the same ideology and belief, are uplifted economically and spiritually and for the subsistence of their religion. A duty is cast on the Commissioner under Section 23, to ensure that such temples and endowments are properly administered and that their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were founded or exist and therefore, whenever any order is passed, the object of the endowment is not to be forgotten. Section 29 of the Act lays down the preparation of register for all institutions by the Commissioner. That apart, the Joint Commissioners are clothed with the power to retrieve the temple lands from the encroachers by exercising the powers under Sections 78, 79 and 80. But, the officials have not properly exercised the power conferred on them and they are in dereliction of duties and responsibilities assigned to them. At least from now, the HR&CE Department should act diligently to retrieve all the properties under the encroachments.
31.8 The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, gives the right to the ASI to declare any site as a protected area and remove all unauthorised constructions and alterations within the protected area. Similar rights under the State Act are granted to the state. The Act also makes it clear that if the monument is a shrine or a place of worship, then it shall not be used for any purpose inconsistent with its character. Therefore, despite being brought under the ASI, the right of public to worship is protected. The Big Temple in Tanjore, though declared as a world heritage site and coming within the protected zone of ASI, still, is a prominent
place of worship under the Control of HR&CE Department of the state.
31.13 A reading of the above provisions would clearly demonstrate that the role of the state department is to protect the monuments by carrying out appropriate repair works without damaging the original structures. It is also the duty of the state to ensure that all illegal encroachments and constructions are removed. Similarly, it is the duty of the officers of the central Government to ensure that appropriate action is taken to protect the monument or sites. Section 30C of the Ancient Monuments and the Archaeological Sites and Remains Act is an exhaustive provision and when read together with Sections 30A and 30B, it not only empowers action against any officer of the central department, who has failed in his duty, but also indirectly enables the officer of the central department to take action against any person, be it even an officer under the state who has acted in detrimental to the interest of the monument or site in collusion with the perpetrator and any officer of the central Government. However, the report filed by the UNESCO team referred to above would clearly indicate that both the central and state departments have failed in its efforts to safeguard the sites and remove the encroachments and illegal constructions in and around many temples and sites of archaeological importance including Mamallapuram and hence, they are liable to be prosecuted under Section 30C.
31.14 That apart, Rules 10, 30, 31, 38 and 49 of the Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules, 1964 specifically deal with renovation and repairs of antiquities and buildings having heritage value and archaeological importance and the same are profitably extracted herein below:
“Rule 10 provides that proposals in regard to works that are not purely secular shall be framed with due regard to the principles and practice for traditional architecture and to the need for preserving architectural, sculptural and archaeological features.
Rule 30 provides that the construction and repairs of any gopuram, etc., shall, with the sanction of the appropriate authority, be
entrusted to any able stapathi selected from the panel of stapathis approved by the Government, from time to time.
Rule 31 provides that repairs, alterations etc., shall be carried out by the board of trustees only with the prior permission of the commissioner and such permission shall be granted only on obtaining competent advise thereon.
Rule 38 provides that whenever the Commissioner finds it desirable or necessary, the Archaeological department shall be consulted regarding any building work.
Rule 49 says that the Board of Trustees shall maintain the paraphernalia such as car, vahanams, palanquins, chapparams, in good condition and proposals for their repairs, etc., should be made to the appropriate authority wherever necessary for sanction at the time of submission of budget after obtaining the advice of an expert stapathi from out of the panel approved by the Government.”
Thus, there exists a comprehensive statutory framework for carrying out repairs and renovation works in temples in the state of Tamil Nadu while preserving and conserving their Archaeological and historical heritage.
37.From the pleadings and submissions as referred to above, it is ascertained that most of the old ancient temples have been damaged because of time, age and absence of proper maintenance and supervision. Even after the Pallava period, some of the temples constructed during the Chola period after the 10th Century (A.D.) have also been damaged. While renovating the old temples, the authorities have to take note of the old sculptural works and the renovating works have to be carried out without causing any damage to its originality. However, the same are not taken note of while renovation of the temples even as per the above referred reports of the amicus curiae, UNESCO and Mr.Rangarajan Narasimhan. The fact remains that in most of the
temples, the repair works have damaged the original structure and the cultural heritage. This is, as pointed out in the report of the UNESCO, due to insufficient staff with technical skills on sculpting, agamas and shastras. Further, it has to be noted that the old rock inscriptions have to be protected and restored to its originality, while making renovation of the temples. The original rock inscriptions reflect the period, time and age of the sculptural work along with the details as to who has done the same, etc. The renovation/restoration must be done only by experts so as to ensure that not only the sanctum is protected but also the architecture value. Therefore, the need of the hour is to undo the wrong and lapses and to carry out proper repair works by the HR&CE Department so as to possibly restore the originality.
38.Similarly, many temples have been constructed by many Kings with distinct and different features/ characteristics. The value of the temple/monument is unknown to a layman. It was either the Government or an expert who would be able to assess the value of the monument or the period of the temple. Likewise, historians, by looking at the temples, will be able to identify the period during which a particular temple was constructed and in whose reign it has been constructed. Now, with the advent and development of technology, the information and knowledge can reach the public in few seconds. Therefore, it will not be out of place to mention here that the officials of the HR & CE department, to be fully equipped to handle the temples, require an organisational restructure by including experts like qualified stapathis in their ranks who are also trained in Agama and Shilpa Sastras as suggested by the UNESCO team, Engineers, system operators, etc. It is observed so, only to emphasise that all these temples are valuable treasures of this land and they have to be properly maintained without changing or altering the ancientness or its original value.
42.The noble object behind the donation of the properties/lands in favour of the temples is only to protect the temples and to enable it to survive for several long years along with the heritage and culture of our land to the future generation.
Throwing to winds, the temple properties/lands are being encroached, misappropriated and mishandled. Though several directions were issued by this Court, the process of identification of encroached lands and retrieval have not been undertaken swiftly and the officials are determined to do away with the lands for political or appeasement reasons contrary to the object of grant and in detrimental to the interest of the temples, which can only be termed as a step to slowly diminish the religious belief, tradition, culture and practices. At this juncture, it is relevant to quote the lines of the great Tamil poet Thirumoolar in his book 'Thirumandiram', which reads as follows:
@fl;Ltpj; jhh;kjpw; fy;byhd;Wth';fpoy; btl;Ltpf; Fk;mgpnlfj; juriu Kl;Ltpf; Fk;Kdpntjpah; MapDk; btl;Ltpj; njtpLk; tpz;ztd; Mizna@
? jpUke;jpuk;
It means, 'none should cause any damage or usurp the properties of the temple'. But, the statistical record reveals that out of 5.25 lakh acres of land, only 4.78 lakh acres are available as of now and the balance acres of land are in the hands of encroachers. It is significant to mention here that the HR & CE department is the custodian and administrator of the temples and its properties. But this department, to the knowledge of this Court, has not purchased even a small portion of land for the benefit of any temple. As administrator, the role of this department is much more responsible and the officials are culpable and liable to be punished in case of breach of their responsibility. The administrative right to deal with the temple properties is only to preserve and augment more revenue, implying that the temple lands ought not be alienated or given away. It is to be noted that the Government cannot claim right over the temple lands and the same cannot be a part of any Government scheme, otherwise, the very object of the creation of the HR & CE department would get defeated. Considering the need of the same, this Court in V.Muthusamy v. Superintendent of Police [2018-1WLR.530 : 2018-2-LW.623], directed the Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Chennai to act under Section 34A of the Act and to fix the market rents for all the
properties and take further action. Similarly, in P.Lakshmanan v. Superintendent of Police and others [2018 (3) CTC 493 : (2018) 3 MLJ 202], the Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Chennai was directed to conduct enquiry under Section 78 of the Act and take steps to recover the temple lands. However, no fruitful efforts were stated to have been made on the part of the department.
43.As per the statistics, there are about 413 monuments in Tamil Nadu under the control of ASI, out of which 403 fall under Chennai circle and 10 under the Thrissur Circle. The excavations at various sites have thrown a light on the unanswered questions on the origin and evolution of humanity. The state department has conducted excavation at 40 sites. The excavation at Keeladi has brought a new dimension to the claim of the people of this land regarding the ancientness of the language and origin. Though the State has done commendable work in certain areas like manuscripts, it has fallen short in the maintenance of heritage sites and temples as pointed out in the report of the UNESCO team. In this context, it is relevant to recollect the observation of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Mankotiav. Secy. to the President of India, [(1997) 10 SCC 441], while dealing with the need to protect the monuments of national importance, which reads as under:
“19.It is needless to mention that as soon as the Indian Institute of Advanced Studies vacates the building and hands it over to the Archaeological Department, the Government should provide the necessary budget for effecting repairs and restoring to the building its natural beauty and grandeur. It is also necessary that its proper maintenance and preservation is undertaken as an on going process to protect the historical heritage and needed repairs are effected from time to time. We avail this opportunity to direct the Government of India to maintain all national monuments under the respective Acts referred to above and to ensure that all of them are properly maintained so that the cultural and historical heritage of India and the beauty and grandeur of the monuments, sculptures secured through breathless and passionate labour workmanship, craftsmanship and the
skills of the Indian architects, artists and masons is continued to be preserved. They are the pride of Indians and places of public visit. The tourist visitors should be properly regulated and collection of funds by way of admission/entrance fee should be conscientiously accounted for and utilised for their upkeep and maintenance under the respective regulations/rules. Adequate annual budgetary provisions should be provided. In this behalf, it may not be out of place to mention that if one goes to Williamsburg in United States of America, the first settlement of the British therein is preserved as a tourist resort and though it is one in the row, its originality is maintained and busying (sic bustling) business activity goes on in and around the area attracting daily hundreds of tourists from all over the world. Similar places of interest, though of recent origin, need to be preserved and maintained as manifestation of our cultural heritage or historical evidence. Similar efforts should also be made by the Government of India, in particular the Tourism Department, to attract foreign tourists and to give them a good account of our past and glory of the people of India as message to the other countries and territories. Equally all the State Governments would do well vis-à-vis monuments of State importance, though given power under Schedule VII List II Entry 12 to the Constitution. From this perspective, the petitioner has served a great cause of national importance and we place on record his effort to have the Viceregal Lodge preserved and maintained; but for his painstaking efforts, it would have been desecrated into a five star hotel and in no time ‘We, the people of India’ would have lost our ancient historical heritage.”
45.Be it noted, the monumental sites and places of historical importance are also to be identified, photographed, listed and preserved. Though the HR&CE department has categorically denied that the renovation work carried out at their behest is not the cause for erosion or damage, this Court is of the opinion that the department should be more
sensitive to the concept of archaeology and historical value of the temples. The department should devise a permanent mechanism by including experts of all fields for consultation before carrying out renovation works, but they are taking decisions with just a Chief stapathi and senior officials. This Court is conscious of the controversies surrounding the appointment and function of the Chief stapathi in collusion with the officials. Contracts for restoration of idols, pillars, gopuram and other structures are made as if they are pure civil contracts. Therefore, with the growing need to protect the temples and its properties, it is ripe time to crack the whip and issue necessary directions, the compliance of which alone shall enable the department to carry out the renovation/repair works in the temples with its originality and ancientness.
50.Another important contention that is often raised is non appointment of a “Trustee” and managing the temples with department staff appointed as “Fit Person”. As per the provisions of the HR & CE Act, the Commissioner is empowered to appoint a fit person to administer the temple in the absence of a Trustee and the same cannot be resorted to as a matter of routine exercise. The word “Fit” is synonymous to “Appropriate”. The intention of the legislature is to appoint a person not only with impeccable integrity, devotion, sincerity, honesty and belief, but also a person with some basic knowledge in agamas, tradition and administration. The appointment cannot be mechanical, but it has to be made with application of mind in a transparent manner. Similarly, only a theist can be permitted to occupy any post in the temple or in the department as the occupation of any post not only requires sincerity, but also an interest and belief to augment the object of the Act. It is needless to state that the trustees so appointed must also be worthy to such appointments. Mere political recommendation or a person capable of making huge donations cannot be a criteria for being appointed as a Trustee. A true donor would be a person, who makes such donations in pursuance of his philanthropic or spiritual ideology but not for a quid pro quo appointment as a Trustee. Therefore, the trustees must also satisfy the requirements as mentioned above.
COMMISSION ON HERITAGE
(1) The respondents shall establish Mamallapuram World Heritage Area Management Authority to manage and safeguard all the monuments and the same shall
be notified within a period of eight (8) weeks from today.
(2) The respondents shall constitute the Heritage Commission consisting of 17 members within a period of eight (8) weeks from today, which shall act as an advisory body to the Mamallapuram World Heritage Area Management Authority and the Government as well.
(3) The Heritage Commission shall consist of 17 members including the representatives from Archaeological Survey of India, representatives from the State Archaeological Department, one renowned historian or anthropologist, two representatives of PWD department i.e., one from Building Structural and Conservation Wing and another from Architectural Wing, one representative from the HR&CE Department not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, oneStapathi qualified from the Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mamallapuram or any other college in the state with similar objectives, two experts in Agamas and Shilpa Shastras and one chemical analyst. The inclusion of a representative from the UNESCO shall also be taken into consideration. sha
(4) The Heritage Commission shall identify all the structures, monuments, temples, antiques with historical/archaeological importance within the State of Tamil Nadu, formulate a list with age of such monuments by categorising them within their period group, issue appropriate notification, render periodical advices to the State, supervise the restoration, repair works etc. and maintain the same.
(5) No structural alteration or repair of any monument / temple / idol / sculpture / murals of which are notified either under the Central Act or the State Act, shall take place without the sanction of the Heritage Commission.
EXPERT COMMITTEE
(6) The State shall reconstitute the State Level Expert Committee, consisting of a Structural Expert, Archaeological Expert, Conservation Expert, a qualified Traditional Stapathi preferably from the Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mamallapuram, an Expert from history, epigraphy, iconography and Fine arts and Two Agama Experts, besides a representative from HR&CE and PWD
Departments. The State Level Expert Committee shall be responsible for carrying out and according sanctions for the repairs/renovations of the temples and archaeological sites, on the recommendation of the District Level Committees.
(7) The State shall constitute District Level Committees, which will consist of historical expert, qualified stapathis, Architectural Expert, Mural Expert, conservative expert, a representative from HR&CE Department, within a period of eight weeks.
(8) The Committee shall visit all the temples in their respective District, identify the temples and sculptures which are required to be brought under the State Act and which require immediate attention for repairing and prepare a report that is to be forwarded to the Government for appropriate action under the supervision of the Heritage Commission or the State Level Expert Committee as the case may be.
(9) The Committee shall meet at least once in every month and conduct periodical inspection of the monuments and temples in line with the objects of the HR&CE Act, Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (Central as well as State Acts) and the Rules framed there under.
MANUAL
(10) The Government shall finalise the conservation manual containing the regulations for the functions of the Heritage Commission as well the Mamallapuram World Heritage Area Management Authority and the procedures for conservation, preservation and renovation of heritage and non-heritage temples, monuments and historical sites with the assistance of the officials attached to the State and Central ASI Departments and HR & CE Department, within a period of twelve (12) weeks.
MONUMENTS
(11) The ASI shall conduct state wide field survey of antique temples of more than 100 years old and estimate the damage and restore the structure according to its conservation rules to its former glory within a period of six (6) to twelve (12) months. The assessment document shall be kept in the official website of the Chennai ASI Circle, after having scanned and photographed, for the public scrutiny. It is open to the ASI to create a public portal, enabling the public to pass on information about historic monuments and temples of their area
so as to enable the respondents to take immediate steps to preserve them.
(12) The conservation plan and its related documents shall be published in the official website of ASI before starting the conservation activity, so as to enable the worshippers to provide the feedback on the same.
(13) The HR&CE Department with the assistance of ASI, shall grade the temples, such as listed and non-listed, based on architectural values, historic importance, year of existence, etc.
(14) Architectural marvels, mural paintings, stone & wall inscriptions, wooden carving, copper plates, old antique utensils of the temples, etc, shall be protected, preserved and maintained properly by the respondents.
(15) The CAG audit shall be done with ASI expertise to assess the damage structurally and evaluate the value of the antique destroyed. Further, the compliance audit, financial audit and performance audit shall also be done every year for managing huge wealthy resources of the temples.
REPAIRS, ALTERATION, RENOVATION WORKS ETC.
(19) No structural alteration or repair of any monument, temple or idol or sculpture or murals or paintings which come within the purview and control of the HR&CE Department, shall take place without the sanction of the State Level or District Level Committee and all pending works shall forthwith be proceeded further, only after obtaining sanction from the said Committee.
(20) The District Level Committees must identify the temples in which repair/renovation works have been carried out, wherein cement and white washing has been done detrimental to the original structure, inform the same to the State Level committee or the Commission as the case may be, so as to enable the appropriate authority to redo the work by restoring the originality. Every restoration without altering the form or material must be done after a detailed report in writing supported by adequate photograph and measured by drawing records.
(21) The Renovation and Conservation Wing for the
HR&CE department constituted by the Government, by G.O.(Ms).No.108, TC&RE Department, dated 09.08.2019, should ensure that the members of the committee are trained with scientific / technical knowledge to undertake the works of conservation and should act strictly for the purpose to which it was constituted.
(22) The HR&CE department shall adopt the scientific technology in the process of documentation, preservation and conservation of heritage temples and its properties and valuables.
(23) To maintain the quality of ornamental works, the usage of sand blasting for cleaning the buildings, must be avoided and the shortfalls in the repair works done in the temples in violation of Agama and Shilpa shastras as pointed out in the report of the UNESCO team, must be attended to and the original position must be attempted to be restored.
TEMPLE FUNDS
(24) The funds of the temples shall first be utilized for the maintenance of temples, conducting temple festivals, payment to its staff including the archakas, oduvars, musicians, folklore and drama artiste. In case of surplus funds, the same shall be utilized for attending the repair and maintenance of other temples in the state as specified under the HR&CE Act and the Rules framed there under and for propaganda of the tenets of all or any of the religious institutions under the HR&CE Act.
(25) The State Government shall allocate funds for protection and preservation of the ancient monuments declared under the State Act and for the functioning of the Commission as well the State and the District Level Committees. The State Government shall also make proper access / roads leading to the monuments. Such exercises shall be done within a period of six (6) to twelve (12) months from date of receipt of this order.
AUDIT
(26) The HR&CE Department shall frame standards and procedures for auditing the fixed and current assets of the temples and its properties.
(27) The HR&CE Department may permit the stakeholders of the various religious denominations to participate in the meetings conducted by the
Committees as and when required.
(28) The audit of the religious institutions shall be conducted periodically by an independent audit wing as required under Section 87 of the HR&CE Act and the same must be ensured by the HR&CE Department.
(29) The funds received from the donors shall be accounted and registered in the records maintained by the HR&CE Department.
(30) The respondent authorities shall ensure that the officials are updating the registers for maintenance of jewels, icons, valuables, articles, antiques, stolen or lost from the temples and also the cases relating to theft, missing of valuable gold, silver ornamental items, etc. and necessary action be taken to retrieval of the lost / theft items.
LAND REVENUE, RENT, ARREARS, ENCHROACHMENTS ETC
(31) The District Committees must take stock of the lands of all the temples within their respective District, list out the total extent with survey number and door number, vacant or leased, nature of land i.e agricultural or otherwise, current rent, date of fixation of rent, current market rent, name of lessee/tenant, duration of lease, whether authorised by the Commissioner, if the period of lease is beyond 5 years, nature of the lessee whether individual, firm or company and in case, lessee is an individual, then the religion of such individual, arrears if any of each lessee with period of default, list of cases pending before any forum or Court regarding the rent or entitlement to lease, list of encroachers including sub-tenant and sub-lessees and status of action taken to remove the encroachers, list of temple lands conveyed and action taken to retrieve them and status of the criminal complaint lodged against illegal sale of temple land, if any and document the same properly. A detailed report also be filed before this Court within a period of twelve (12) weeks.
(32) The agricultural lands fit for cultivation must preferably be let out to poor farmers rather than persons already holding with large extent of lands and for that purpose, a Scheme is to be devised and
only after verification of extent of the land held by the lessee and obtaining an undertaking, the lands must be leased out in consonance with the provisions of the HR&CE Act.
(33) The state Government or the Commissioner of the HR&CE department, who are the Trustee/administrator of the temple lands, shall not alienate or give away the lands contrary to the wish of the donor. The lands shall always remain with the temples. The public purpose theory shall not be invoked in cases of temple lands over which the interest of the community people of the religious denomination generally rests.
(34) Insofar as Service inams as per the customary practice is concerned, only one property shall be given to an individual during his/her tenure of service and after his/her retirement or disassociation with the temple, the same shall be recovered. Wherever more than one property has been given as inam, the same shall be recovered and given to some other deserving service providers. In case, the land/property is under the occupation of any third party, steps must be taken to evict them forthwith.
(35) The encroachment and illegal constructions in the protected area, archaeological sites, temple lands, etc., must immediately be removed. The extent of lands owned by the temples must be identified with the help of the revenue Department by the District Level Committee. The District Collector of the appropriate District, on the request of the Heritage Commission or State Committee or District Level Committees or by any officer of the HR&CE Department, shall forthwith take steps for the removal of any such illegal construction or encroachment or unauthorised occupants. Appropriate action must be taken against the errant Government officials of the central as well as state department and officers under the HR&CE department for not removing the encroachments in the protected and regulated area, within a period of eight (8) weeks on expiry of the time given.
(36) A list of defaulters with the arrears due from them must be prepared within a period of six (6) weeks and the same must be published in the website. Appropriate steps must be taken to evict them and recover the arrears as per the provisions of the HR&CE Act and the rules there under.
(37) The respondent authorities shall regulate the period of lease pertaining to the properties of the religious institutions and renewal of the same.
(38) The HR&CE Department shall allocate the agricultural lands belonging to the temples for organic farming and temple animal husbandry.
TRUSTEE
(54) The HR&CE Department shall file a report before this Court within a period of eight (8) weeks listing out the number of temples without Trustees, the duration of such vacancy, the particulars of the persons appointed as “Fit Person” and the steps taken by the Department to appoint trustees.
(55) If no hereditary trustees stake claim, then steps must be taken to appoint non-hereditary trustees. The non-hereditary trustees must be from the religious denomination, to which the temple belongs to, without the political background.
(56) Stringent rules on the conduct, character, interest and knowledge on both religious affairs as well as administrative abilities of the trustees, must be enacted to ensure that the right person is appointed to manage the religious affairs of the temples.
(57) Keeping in mind that the overall administration shall be with the HR&CE Department, the authorities shall supervise the affairs of the religious institutions ensuring that the HR&CE Act is strictly complying with by the trustees and taking necessary remedial steps for which they are paid an annual contribution as specified under Section 92.
LEGAL ACTION
(58) The disciplinary action shall be taken against the officials, who are responsible for demolition and reconstruction of the ancient temples, without necessary approval/ permission from the required authority.
(59) The respondent authorities shall look into it as to whether appropriate departmental action is taken against the erring officials of the HR&CE Department and trustees of the temples under Sections 53 and 66 of the Act against whom, the allegations with regard to the loss and theft of idols, illegal transfers of the properties / lands
owned by the public religious institutions / temples are made, after conducting proper enquiry in this regard.
RULES
(63) All the employees and trustees concerned with the temples are made to be governed by the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. There shall be a prohibition for the person with political background to be appointed as a Trustee or employee of the temple in any cadre, in view of Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules.
(64) The Central Government shall implement the Ancient Monuments Act in letter and spirit, by declaring all religious structures more than 100 years old including temples, temples' tanks, mutts, temple chariots, jewels, art, artefacts, and sacred groves etc., including private denomination temples, as ‘national monuments’ with immediate effect.
(65) A High level committee has to be formed to review the HR&CE Act once in three years to make necessary amendments, however, subject to judicial review.
(66) The HR&CE Act must be suitably amended by strict incorporation of penal provisions as per IPC and the procedures laid down under the Cr.P.C to cover all the illegal acts done in respect of the temples for proper action.
(67) Steps be taken to amend the HR&CE Rules by incorporating various provisions on the line of National Conservation Policy and International Charters regarding conservation of monuments.
(68) A District wise committee headed by District Ayurvedic head doctor and Siddha head doctor, trustees, food and safety officer and devotees shall be constituted for procurement of genuine, traditional and scientifically declared safer prasadam and abishegam items.
Though the validity of the impugned Rules are upheld, this Court is of the considered opinion that having due regard to the changes and needs that have arisen by lapse of time, it would be appropriate for the Respondents to re-visit the impugned Rules by deleting unnecessary provisions, which have no more relevance, and introduce suitable provisions in respect of
matters which are not covered under the existing Rules, in confirmity with the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 07.06.2021 in W.P. No. 574 of 2015 for effective and proper management of Temples across the State.
32.In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rk
To
2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, 119, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 42802
W.P.No.17468 of 2016
PVS(CO) GN(20/09/2021)
3 issues framed by the court
Are the Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules, 1964 beyond the powers conferred by Section 116(2)(xvii) and (xix) of the HR&CE Act?
Does the absence of definitions for preservation, maintenance, management and improvement invalidate the Rules?
Can wrongful implementation of the Rules justify declaring them invalid?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Seshammal v. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶61
Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1972) 2 SCC 11] · Who else cites this
Poppatlal Shah v. State of MadrasRelied on¶68
Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras [AIR 1953 SC 274] · Who else cites this
N airin v. University of St. AndrewsRelied on¶71
[1909 AC 147]
Hari Prasad Shivashanker Shukla v. A.D. DivelkarRelied on¶73
[AIR 1957 SC 121 · Who else cites this
Balram Kumawat v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶76
Balram Kumawat v. Union of India, [(2003) 7 SCC 628 : 2003 SCC Online SC 922 at page 634] · Who else cites this
State of West Bengal v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶78
State of West Bengal v. Union of India [AIR 1963 SC 1241] · Who else cites this
R.S. Raghunath v. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶81
R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka [(1992) 1 SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 286 : (1992) 19 ATC 507 : AIR 1992 SC 81] · Who else cites this
State of T.N. v. P. KrishnamurthyApplied¶89
State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy, [(2006) 4 SCC 517 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 339 at page 528] · Who else cites this
suo motu WP.No.574 of 2015Relied on¶103
9 provisions across 3 enactments
T.R.Ramesh
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Department of Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments
R.MAHADEVAN
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
