‘Why should religious places not be left to religious people’: SC refuses to entertain plea against AP HC order

The query came from a bench of Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka while hearing the Andhra Pradesh government’s Special Leave Petition challenging the October 13, 2022 high court order which held that “since the Sri Ahobilam Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi Swamy Ahobilam Devasthanam has been associated with the Ahobilam Mutt due to common religious practices and involvement in administration”, it “is necessarily a part and parcel and an integral and inseparable part of the Ahobilam Mutt”.

The state pointed out that thus, as per the high court, only the head of the Ahobilam mutt could be in charge of the administration of the temple and not an executive officer appointed by the commissioner of the State Endowments Department under the AP Religious Endowments and Charitable Institutions Act, 1987. The government added that they cannot be held as one juristic entity and the finding of the high court is ex-facie unsustainable and violative of basic principles of jurisprudence.

The government said it had appointed executive officers to the temple even in the past and there were no protests. The protests started only after an executive officer was appointed in March 2019, it said.

The bench, however, was not convinced and asked the state’s counsel, “Why are you stepping into that?…” Though the state tried to press its case, Justice Kaul said, “Let the temple people deal with it… Why should religious places not be left to religious people?”.

The remarks by the Supreme Court come at a time when there are increasing demands for freeing temples from state control.