VIJAYAWADA: The Supreme Court has said the Andhra Pradesh government need not interfere in the Ahobilam temple matters and instead allow religious entities to deal with issues.
A division bench of Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice A.S. Oka on Friday heard a plea filed by the AP government challenging the AP High Court order against that AP government’s decision to appoint an executive officer to manage the temple in Kurnool district.
The HC had said the decision of the state was violative of Article 26 (D) of the Constitution and would affect the Mathadhipathi’s right to run the temple administration. The apex court dismissed the AP’s appeal against the HC order.
The bench asked AP’s senior counsel Niranjan Reddy as to why the state government was stepping into the temple issues. It would be better for it to allow the temple authorities to deal with religious places, the SC ruled.
The AP High Court, in its order, noted that the temple was an integral part of the Ahobilam Mutt in Tamil Nadu. The court refused to accept AP’s contention that both the temple and the mutt were distinct entities. “Just because both the mutt and the temple are located in different geographical locations, the mutt in Tamil Nadu and the temple in AP, the temple need not cease to be a part of the mutt.”
The HC further noted that both the temple and the mutt were founded and administered by the Madhadipathi(s) since time immemorial, the court said based on a verification of the related literature and archaeological data.
The HC said the general power of supervision and control of the mutt was not given to the state and it could interfere in mutt’s affairs only when there was any instance of mismanagement. It also noted that the temple has been under the control of the Mathadipathi(s) as per provisions of Endowments Act, 1972, and the state government was not given any authority to nominate the Madhadipathi(s).
The petitioners in their plea had submitted to the AP High Court that the state government was not having any authority to appoint the executive officer for either the mutt or the temple as per norms of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act. The court maintained that the mutts were given special status and the right to manage their affairs.
