K.T. SANGAMESWARAN
In order to have more regulatory control over mutts
The Madras High Court on Wednesday said it was of the opinion that the State government could consider amending the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act to have more regulatory control over mutts. The amendment could be made as found in Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act.
A Division Bench, comprising Justices R. Banumathi and R. Subbiah, said while disposing of writ petitions questioning the appointment of Nityananda alias Rajasekar as the 293rd 'madathipathi' (Head) of the Madurai Adheenam, a monastery spreading the cause of Saivism.
The judges said since a suit had already been filed (in Madurai), it was not inclined to issue any direction in the petitions. More so, when Nityananda was now said to have been removed as madathipathi, suffice it to note that the State could file an appropriate application in the suit to get any interim direction, if it so desired. All the issues were left open, Mrs. Justice Banumathi and Mr. Justice Subbiah said.
The petitioners' common grievance was that Nityananda, who was running the Bidadi Ashram in Karnataka, had nothing to do with Saivite philosophy.
Moreover, he had a criminal background and cases were pending against him. By giving a go-bye to all cardinal principles, which the adheenam was adopting for the past 1400 years by way of custom and usage, the adheenam had appointed Nityananda as the junior pontiff.
The Madurai Adheenam countered that his right to appoint his successor was absolute. The court could not interfere with the same.
Counsel for a writ petitioner citing a Supreme Court judgment submitted that in the Andhra Pradesh Act, the power of removal of the Madathipathi was given to the Commissioner under Section 51. The Bench said any Madathipathi or trustee aggrieved by the Commissioner's order could file a suit within 90 days challenging the order. The provision was more effective in initiating action against erring Madathipathis.
The Bench said mutts were engaged in varied activities, both secular and non-secular, and were running several educational institutions. It was of the considered view that when certain allegations were made against the trustees of a mutt by the disciples and devotees, instead of making the HR and CE to undergo the ordeal of trial by filing a suit, the Commissioner should have powers to deal with the situation.
"We are of the opinion that, to have more regulatory control over mutts, the State can consider amending the provisions of Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu HR and CE Act by giving suo motu powers to the Commissioner, as found in Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act."
No comments:
Post a Comment