Hyderabad: Alleging that the sanctity and divinity of the Srisailam temple was lost with non-Hindu businessmen setting up shop within the temple complex, Goshamahal MLA Raja Singh said the AP government had failed to take steps to uphold Hindu sentiments by engaging an effective lawyer in the Supreme Court.
He said a government order had prohibited giving business outlets within the temple complex to non-Hindu entrepreneurs.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice A.S Bopanna had passed an interim order directing that none of the vendors be excluded from becoming tenants of the temple on the basis of their religious identity. The case will next be heard on January 18.
Raja Singh said non-Hindu shop owners and entrepreneurs were flouting norms with regard to meat consumption and were defiling the temple precincts. He said GO No. 426 was issued by the Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy government prohibiting entrepreneurs from other religious in Srisailam, but the Jagan Mohan Reddy government was violating the norms, he alleged.
It may be recalled that the commissioner of endowments, Andhra Pradesh, had issued a GO directing non-Hindu tenants, said to be about 100, to vacate the Lord Mallikarjuna temple premises in Srisailam in May 2015.
Giving teeth to the GO, the state amended the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Immovable Properties and Other Rights (other than agricultural lands) leases and licenses rules, 2003 in November 2015. The amended rules prohibit non-Hindus from becoming tenants of the temple.
Muslim vendors challenged the amendment in the AP High Court claiming that it violated their rights to equality and was against the principles of secularism.
The state argued that the amendment protected the interests of Hindu devotees, who were inconvenienced by the pesence of non-Hindu deities and the alleged distribution of meat, including beef, by non-Hindu vendors. The state additionally claimed that it was empowered to pass laws to reform Hindu temples.
The temple administration said that its decision to vacate non-Hindu tenants could not be challenged as it was not an institution owned or managed by the state.
