Bihar moves to amend Bodhgaya Temple Act

'05 NCM resolution wanted changes

Sixty-four years after it was framed,Bihar is set to change the controversial Bodhgaya Temple Act,1949 that provides for a Hindu majority in the managing committee of the Mahabodhi Mahavira,the most sacred Buddhist place of worship.

In a letter last month to the National Commission for Minorities,the state government informed them it is planning to amend the Act as it is against the secular fabric of the state.

Buddhists have been demanding full control over the shrine for years. The managing committee consists of eight members,four Buddhists and four Hindus. The Hindus are part of the committee because there is a Shiva temple within the precincts of the first century Buddhist structure.

The Gaya district magistrate is the ex officio chairman of the panel while other members are nominated. What has been deemed ultra vires of the Constitution by many legal experts is a provision that empowers the state government to nominate a Hindu as the chairman of the committee if the DM of Gaya is not a Hindu.

In his letter to the minority panel chief Wajahat Habibullah,Kamal Narayan Singh,joint secretary,home department,wrote: Bihar is a secular state. The post of DM doesnt relate to any caste,religion or community. Therefore the amendment of the Bodhgaya Temple Act is necessary for the sake of secularism by deleting the proviso of sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the Act. This amendment is under consideration before the state and counter affidavits have been filed by the state of Bihar with respect to both writ petitions in the Supreme Court.

This is a U-turn from the state governments 2010 stand that there is no need to amend the Act. After discussions with legal experts who believed the Government of India cannot intervene in the case of a state Act even though the provision to nominate a Hindu chairman if there is a non-Hindu DM is unconstitutional,Buddhists had moved the SC.

Singhs letter refers to these cases. Buddhist monks have gone on indefinite hunger strikes demanding that the community be handed over control of the shrine. NCM had passed a unanimous resolution in 2005 that the Act needs to be amended .

Story continues below this ad

However the demand for full control has never cut much ice. At one point senior advocate K Parasaran had opined that secular administration can be vested in people belonging to any religion and it does not have to be from that particular religion. Subsequently Rajiv Dhawan pronounced Sub section 33 unconstitutional.