The Bombay High Court on Friday questioned whether the Maharashtra government can have a perpetual succession over the Vitthal Rukmini temple at Pandharpur under the Pandharpur Temples Act (PTA), 1973.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by former member of Rajya Sabha and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramaniam Swamy challenging the Pandharpur Temples Act, which empowers the Maharashtra government to take over the administration of the temples at Pandharpur.
Swamy personally argues the matter
During the hearing on Friday, Swamy, who personally argued the matter, submitted that the Act says the board would have a perpetual succession and as body corporate have powers of control of Vitthal Rukmini temple.
He argued that the Article 31 (a) (i) (b) of the Constitution of India permits taking over management of any property by the state for a limited period, either in public interest or proper management of property.
To this, Justice Gangapurwala asked: “You are saying It is not in perpetuity and that is unconstitutional?”
On a court query, Swamy said that the act was introduced in 1975.
The judges questioned Swamy as to why he was challenging the provision after all these years. “… and this provision existed on that date? Why is it being assailed after such a long time?” Asked Justice Gangapurwala.
Issue in public interest, says Swamy
Swamy said that it was in public interest and he filed the plea when certain persons came to him with the issue. Besides, no one has addressed the issue so far, he added.
Advocate General Birendra Saraf said that a Supreme Court judgment which deals with Article 26 categorically holds religious domination. It deals with religious denominations and sections freedom over their religious affairs, institutions, and property.
Saraf pointed out to the court that a suit was filed by three persons claiming right over the same temple. The HV and even the Supreme Court refused to intervene and it went against the three persons.
“This challenge cannot be sustained and the entire law is dealt with by SC. That there is no acquisition,” added Saraf.
Justice Gangapurwala said: “But one of the contention is that it has to be in a limited period and this is in perpetuity.”
Saraf replied that it is not an absolute right. It is subject to reasonable restrictions of the constitution. “ This issue may not be expressly stated but judgement deals with permanent takeover, the right to practice religion can be curtailed for morality. It is an act of 1975, SC has said belated challenge should not be considered,” added Saraf.
The Hc has kept the matter for hearing on July 5.
The plea prays that the Act be struck down and a committee of priests, representatives of devotees and warkaris be constituted for proper management of the temple.
