Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor on Monday sought a response from the Maharashtra government in the Public Interest Litigation filed by BJP Leader Subramanium Swamy challenging the constitutional validity of the Pandharpur Temples Act that allowed the Maharashtra government to take control over the administration of the temples.

The former member of Rajya Sabha, Subramanian Swamy had filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Bombay High Court for freeing the temples of Lord Vithal and Lord Rukmini at Pandharpur from the government-controlled administration.

The former MP in his plea has stated that he had written to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on 7th July 2022 stating that the affairs of the temples were heavily mismanaged in terms of religious offerings and customs of the temples which has an adverse effect on Hindu religious sentiments and their fundamental rights.

Through another letter dated 18th December 2022, Swamy called upon the Governor of Maharashtra to repeal the Pandharpur Temples Act 1973.

The high court on Monday also rejected an interim application filed by Bheemacharya Balacharya who claimed to be part of the Dharma Rakshak Trust. He appeared in person and told the high court that a decree was passed in his favour regarding certain land near the temple.

However, the high court rejected his application and said that they had no locus to intervene in the matter.

“We find that the Sangh does not have any locus to intervene in the PIL petition for the reason that under challenge in the PIL petition is the statutory validity of State Legislation and merely because the members of the said Sangh are devotees of God Shree Vitthal, Rukminee and their other Pariwar Devatas, it cannot be said that they are either necessary or proper parties,” the court said.

The high court on Monday allowed the IA filed by Shree Vitthal Rukmini Temples Committee and said that they would be allowed to make submissions as it was a statutory committee under the act.

Swamy’s plea states that by taking control over the Pandharpur Temples the government is ousting the rights of Hindus to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, and to manage Hindu Religious Endowments and their own affairs in matters of religion.

Additionally, it states that even though the Act was passed in 1973, the administration was vested with the previous priest and only after 2014, the government had taken over the administration of the temple.

The petition has challenged various provisions of the Act which include the appointment of a committee by the State government and bar on suit or proceedings against the government and committee. 

Case title: Dr Subramaniam Swamy & Anr vs State of Maharashtra