HC seeks Maha govt response on Swamy’s PIL against Pandharpur Temples Act

The Bombay High Court has asked the Maharashtra government to respond to a public interest lawsuit filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy challenging the Pandharpur Temples Act 1973. Swamy claims that the government has taken over the administration of the temples in an arbitrary manner. The government has until September 13 to file its affidavit.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) on Monday sought the Maharashtra government’s reply on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy challenging the Pandharpur Temples Act 1973.

HT Image

In the petition filed in February this year, Swamy claimed the Maharashtra government had taken over the administration of the Pandharpur town’s temples in an arbitrary manner.

A division bench of chief justice DK Upadhyaya and justice Arif S Doctor on Monday directed the government to file its affidavit by September 13 when Swamy’s PIL is scheduled to come up for further hearing.

The Maharashtra government had in 2014 invoked the provisions of the act to take over the administration of Vitthal-Rukmini temples at Pandharpur, Solapur district. In the petition filed along with Ghatkopar resident Jagdish Shetty, Swamy has contended that the state government had arbitrarily abolished all hereditary rights and privileges of priestly classes for the governance and administration of the temple.

The petition, filed on February 14 this year, further contended that after the arbitrary takeover, the government has been interfering in the discharge of religious and administrative functions of the temples which is a violation of the right to freedom of religion and that of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Earlier, Swamy had appeared in person and informed the court that as per the Act, the Board would have a perpetual succession and as would have powers to manage and control the administration of the temple.

He had submitted that Article 31 (A) (1) (b) of the Constitution provides the government to take over the management of any property by the state for a limited period either in the public interest or to secure the proper management of the property. However, in the present case, the takeover since 2014 appears to be in perpetuity and therefore unconstitutional.

The state government had, however, urged the court to not entertain the PIL, as the challenge was belated. Advocate general Birendra Saraf for the state government had earlier submitted that the state government had not acquired the temple as propounded by the petitioner and cited a Supreme Court verdict in support of his contention. “It is an Act of 1973 and SC has said a belated challenge should not be considered,” Saraf had submitted.

The Pandharpur Temples Act 1973

The Lords Vithal and Rukmini temples had been managed by priests since their inception and there were other individuals known as ministrants who assisted the priests in administering and governing the temples. Due to numerous complaints against the ministrants and their alleged highhandedness, the state government enacted the Pandharpur Temples Act which came into force in 1974. The act gave unbridled and exclusive powers to the government to take over the management of the temples. However, it was invoked only in 2014 and a six-member committee comprising the head of Pandharpur Municipal Council, two MLCs, a woman, and a member each from the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe was constituted. The committee has been overseeing not only the administration and governance of the temples but also presiding over the ritualistic practices.