Supreme Court that it did not favour govt control over temples and clarified that it had already placed its interpretation of constitutional provisions that enable states to manage secular activities of religious institutions.During the faith vs fundamental rights debate before a nine-judge bench led by CJI Surya Kant, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said SG Tushar Mehta, on behalf of the Centre, and senior advocate A M Singhvi for Travancore Devaswom Board, which manages Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple, had given a particular interpretation of Articles 25 and 26 as govt wanted to control temples.Mehta sought the bench’s permission to rebut the interpretation of his arguments by Sankaranarayanan and said, “Govt does not want to control the temples at all and what he mentioned was purely a constitutional interpretation of Article 25(1)(a), which empowers the state to manage economic, political and secular activities of any religion.”Justice Amanullah asked Mehta whether his ‘‘govt should not control the temples” argument was confined to Hindu religious institutions. The SG said when the court and counsels were engaged in interpretation of constitutional provisions, they could not “be viewed through Hindu, Muslim, Christian or any other religious lens”.Justice Bagchi said the interpretation must be from standpoint of a citizen. The SG said he had given an overview of the diversity in Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and other denominations.
In Kerala, several state govt-supervised bodies, including Travancore, Cochin, Malabar, Guruvayur and Koodalmanikyam Devaswom Boards, control around 3,000 temples. In Tamil Nadu, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department controls over 30,000 temples. In Andhra Pradesh, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Trust Board controls Tirupati Balaji temple. In Karnataka, Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Department manages temples.
The Chardham Devasthanam Board manages Badrinath and Kedarnath shrines in Uttarakhand.
