Read Time: 07 minutes

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently held that devotees of a temple are entitled to have a say in the manner in which an institution or temple is run. 

The bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao observed thus in a plea moved against the proposed reconstruction of Sri Mahankali Ammavari Temple in Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh. 

One Yellanti Renuka had moved the petition alleging that it was her late mother who out of her devotion to Sri Mahankali Ammavaru had got the deity installed on the vacant site belonging to her with the relevant Agama sastras and rites and rituals performed by vedic scholars and purohits in the year 1976. Later on, the temple was further developed.

Stressing that it was her mother and one other who were instrumental in the establishment of the temple and the deity, Renuka had argued that therefore, they would have to be treated as hereditary trustees of the temple.

Renuka submitted that when a move was made to reconstruct the temple by the temple management along with officers of the Endowments Department, she and the other founding member opposed it, however, the authorities decided to go ahead with the proposal and started collecting donations from the devotees for taking up the reconstruction.

Thereafter Renuka approached the high court on the ground that the said reorganization/reconstruction of the temple cannot be permitted and any such action would be violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

However, the respondent authorities had contended that Renuka was not entitled to maintain the writ petition on the ground that she is not a member of the founder family which was a disputed fact.

Court noted that Section 2(18)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1987 states that any person who is entitled to attend or is in the habit of attending the performance of service, charity or worship connected with the institution, would be a 'person having interest'.

Pointing out that the claim of Renuka and the other petitioner that they have been attending and participating in various religious ceremonies and other activities of the temple had not been denied, Court said,

"The term 'persons having interest' has a certain significance. Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that, any two “persons having interest”, can move the court where intervention of the court, in the management of any charitable or religious trust, is required."

Court added that "the term 'persons having Interest” has not been defined in the Code. However, it has been interpreted to include actual worshippers at a temple. (see AIR 1921 PC 84, AIR 1920 Mad 665 and AIR 1971 Mad. 278). The same definition is now incorporated in the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act, 1987."

Further stressing that the Endowment Act has also given a significant place for persons falling under this category, Court stated that Section 43 (5) requires the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to give an opportunity of hearing to such persons, before taking a decision on the registration of an institution under the Act.

Accordingly, Court held, "This is a recognition of the fact that devotees of a temple are entitled to have a say in the manner in which an institution or temple is run and it cannot be said that such persons having interest cannot be permitted to approach this court when there are complaints of mismanagement or violation of the methods of worship or essential religious practices."

Case Title: Yellanti Renuka and another v. State of AP and others