Supreme Court ruling on 'private' temples

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, AUG. 10 When a dispute arises as to whether a temple is a `public' or a `private' place, the Deputy Commissioner (DC) has the power and jurisdiction to inquire and decide such a question under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Delivering the judgment, Mr. Justice Shivraj V. Patil said that the DC, on the facts and circumstance of the case, ``has jurisdiction to decide whether the temple in question, namely, Sri Panduranga Vitthal Swami temple, Chilakalapudi, is a `public' temple or `private' one.''

The Bench, which included Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu, dismissed an appeal against the verdict of the AP High Court which dismissed their (appellant's) writ petition against a notice issued by the DC under Section 87 of the 1987 Act on the question whether the said `temple' was a public or private place.

Section 87 deals with the power of the DC to decide certain disputes and matters. Adverting to a plea from the appellants that the District court concerned had passed a decree in 1941 declaring that the temple in question was a `private' place, the Bench said ``it must be remembered that a `private temple' in course of time depending on various factors and developments may gradually acquire the nature of a `public' temple.''

The Bench, in this context, referred to an earlier Apex Court ruling in the `Mahalaxmi case' which said ``though most of the present day Hindu public temples have been founded as public temples, there are instances of private temples becoming public temples in the course of time. Some of the private temples have acquired a great deal of religious reputation either because of the eminence of its founder or because of other circumstances. They have attracted a large number of devotees. Gradually, in course of time they have become public temples.....''

``Notwithstanding inter alia a decree of a court, the provisions of the 1987 Act will prevail,'' in view of Section 160 of the Act, the Bench pointed out.

As a dispute had arisen in the case, whether the temple in question continued to be `private' or it had become a `public temple', notice was issued by the DC under Section 87 of the 1987 Act and ``it cannot be said that no inquiry can be held and decision taken as to the character of the temple.'' the Bench said.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Child welfare awards announced