18th April 2015

Chilkur

To

His Excellency Sri Pranab Mukherjee

Hon’ble President of India

Rashtrapathi Bhavan

New Delhi

From

Prof. M.V. Soundararajan

Pradana Archaka and Convenor Temples Protection Movement

Sri Chilkur Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy Temple

Ranga Reddy District

Telangana State

Subject: Justice to minority Archaka Community and a Comprehensive Central

Endowments Legislation to preserve protect and defend ideals enshrined in the Preamble of

our Constitution

Ref:

1. Book Titled ‘GOVERNMENT RULES HINDU TEMPLES’ Published April 2015

2. Note Titled ‘A NOTE ON TELANGANA SHARE OF ARREARS DUE TO

RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS FUNDS’

3. G.O.Ms.No. 417 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department dated 20-12-2014

4. Note dated 23rd

April 1951 to the Central Government from Dr Rajendra Prasad First

President of India on representation of Hindu Religious Denominations

We request your Excellency who as our Hon’ble President under the Constitution is the First

Citizen and who represents the Nation’s Dharma and is the keeper of the Country’s Conscience

and bound by the oath under Art 60 read with Art 51A of the Constitution to preserve, protect and

defend the ideals enshrined in the Preamble of our Constitution to take serious cognizance of the

findings and suggestions recorded in the Book titled ‘GOVERNMENT RULES HINDU

TEMPLES’. We request your Excellency to take due cognizance of the experience gained over

past several decades on Government Control on Hindu Religious Institutions which has proved

true many of the apprehensions raised in the Note to the Government by the First President Dr.

Rajendra Prasad on the basis on the representation of Hindu Religious Denominations dated 23rd

April 1951 which is enclosed.

It is quite clear from the findings recorded in the book that there is a clear violation of the

fundamental rights of the Archaka Community (comprising several denominational sub-sects) Art

21 read with Art 29(1), Art 19(1)(g), Art 25, Art 26 and Art 51A(f) of the Constitution. The

Archaka Community as Citizens of this Country has also been promised LIBERTY of thought,

expression, belief, faith and worship in the Preamble of our Constitution. The Archaka

Community forms a minority as per the definition of the Supreme Court in Bal Patil & Anr vs

Union Of India & Ors on 8th August, 2005 Civil Appeal 4370 of 1999 " Minority as understood

from constitutional scheme signifies an identifiable group of people or community who were seen

as deserving protection from likely deprivation of their religious, cultural and educational rights

by other communities who happen to be in majority and likely to gain political power in a

democratic form of Government based on election."

The reasons why the minority Archaka Community has reached this pitiable and impoverished

state and in the danger of becoming extinct under our Constitution has been recorded in detail in

the Book titled ‘GOVERNMENT RULES HINDU TEMPLES’. The Book records how every

organ of the State under our Constitution has failed in its fundamental duty to protect the

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship of the minority Archaka

Community:- State Legislature enacting a draconian 30/87 AP Endowments Legislation against

the wishes of the Religious leaders. The then President of India according assent to it, Supreme

Court upholding the Constitutionality of it in A.S Narayana Deekshitulu v State of Andhra

Pradesh (AIR 1996 SC 1765) using the Essential Practices Doctrine without verifying the

contentions of the Petitioner Organization Telangana Archaka Samakhya that the direct and

inevitable effect of the working of the draconian AP 30/87 Endowments Act would be manifest

deprivation of the fundamental rights of the Archaka community. The Executive not

implementing the orders of the Supreme Court which tried to correct the situation somewhat in its

1997 order after having upheld the constitutionality when the reality was before it in the form of

the report of the Committee which substantiated the contentions of Telangana Archaka

Samakhya.

The minority Archaka Community which is in a pitiable and impoverished state is entitled to a

just compensation for the infringement of its fundamental rights Art 21 read with Art 29(1), Art

19(1)(g), Art 25, Art 26 and Art 51A(f) due to the failure of all organs of the State as per the ratio

of the Supreme Court judgment in WP (Cr) 592 of 1987 “Award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved.” The just claim for a compensation

for deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty of the minority Archaka Community was

filed as part of the Interim Application before the Supreme Court in the pending W.P. 290 of

1998 by Telangana Archaka Samakhya in 2013 which has been reproduced in the Appendix III of

the Book. “This Hon’ble Court should order that the ratio followed in the judgement in

Balasubramania Sastri vs Ponnusami Iyer of Madras High Court 45 Ind Cas 721 dated 29 April

1919 be followed in arriving at the damages due to the impoverished Archaka families due to

non-implementation of the orders of this Hon’ble Court and also the wisdom of the legislature

which lead to impoverishment of the Archakas as they were deprived of the voluntary donations

from devotees as their income augmentation. The Petitioner in his memorandum submitted to

Justice Sri Krishna Committee titled “Temple System at Cross Roads” which is enclosed as

Exhibit C has brought to the focus the injustice done to the Archaka Community and the Culture,

tradition and heritage of Temple System of Worship in the State of Andhra Pradesh from 1987

onwards and gave the following recommendation on the quantum of compensation…”. In the IA

it was also established with facts that the object of the amendment Act 33 of 2007 as recorded by

the Supreme Court in its disposal of RPC 2350 of 1997 which was to restore the status of

Archakas as it existed prior to the enactment of the 30/87 Act never materialized due to the non-

implementation of amendment Act 33 of 2007. “This petition was filed in 1997 for

reconsideration of the judgment in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and

others (1996) 9 SCC 548. During the pendency of the petition, Legislature of the State of Andhra

Pradesh amended the Principal Act,i.e., Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious

Institutions and endowments Act, 1987 (for short, 'the 1987 Act') and restored the status of

Archakas as was obtaining prior to the enactment of 1987 Act. In view of the above

development, this petition is disposed of as infructuous leaving the questions raised in the main

petition open to be decided in an appropriate case. It is also made clear that this order shall not

affect the Reference made vide judgment in A. Ramaswamy Dikshitulu v. Government of Andhra

Pradesh and others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 661.”

In view of the fact that the W.P. 290 of 1998 has been dismissed as withdrawn on 11th Dec 2013

as the Supreme Court did not get into the non-implementation of amendment Act 33 of 2007

aspect as recorded in the Appendix III of the Book giving liberty to pursue appropriate remedy

for the grievances listed in the I.A. and in view of the fact that the State of Andhra Pradesh has

already been bifurcated and the State of Telangana having been formed the justice in this matter

of due compensation can only be delivered by Your Excellency after getting advisory opinion

of the Supreme Court through Art 143(1) and addressing the same in the Central Endowments

Legislation or conversely through amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Bifurcation Act. Already a

note titled ‘A NOTE ON TELANGANA SHARE OFARREARS DUE TO RELIGIOUS

CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS FUNDS’ has been submitted to the Government of Telangana

in this regard which is also enclosed herewith. It is also important to note that the residual State of

Andhra Pradesh through recent G.O.Ms.No. 417 Revenue (Endowments-I) dated 20-12-2014 has

belatedly realized the harm done to the minority Archaka community and is trying to make

amends which is commendable though more needs to be done here; At the same time it is

important to realize that the State of Telangana does not have such funds at its disposal to do

justice in this regard as the said GO provides some relief to the impoverished Archaka

community in the residual State of Andhra Pradesh only. It is further clear from the said GO that

the Andhra Pradesh Government did not implement one of the key orders of the Supreme Court

on proper remuneration till 20-12-2014 a delay of almost 20 years!

Art 143(1) of the Constitution reads as follows:- 143. Power of President to consult Supreme

Court (1) If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or

is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient

to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for

consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its

opinion thereon.

The Government appointed Committee on Service Issues of Temples Employees in its visionary

report dated 5.1.2011 referred to in Appendix III of the book has for the first time defined the

term Public Interest (Public Importance) in terms of Agama Dharma and has also documented in

Sec 2.2.3 (extracts reproduced in Appendix III of the Book) how the Archaka families became

impoverished due to the direct and inevitable effect of the way the AP Endowments Act 30/87

has worked out in view of non-implementation of the orders of the Court in {(1997) 5 SCC 376}

= AIR 1997 SC 3702. What exactly is Public Interest Here? The Agamas have defined this very

clearly. The following are extracts from the book “The Agama Encyclopedia” by Prof S.K

Ramachandra Rao Vol 3 “Because the safety, security, wealth and welfare of the country depends

upon regular worship (six times, three or two times a day) conducted in the temple, the ruler of

the land or the people must see that the worship is not interrupted due to the penury of the priest.

It is prescribed therefore that endowments of lands are made upon the priest free of taxes so that

his family may live in comfort”. (Pg 41-42)

The Supreme Court has already detailed a question of law that needs to be explained in Namit

Sharma vs Union of India in WP No 210 of 2012 judgment dated 13th Sept 2012. “In the case of

Charan Lal Sahu v. UOI [(1990) 1 SCC 614 (667) (para 13), MUKHERJEE, C.J. made an

unguarded statement, viz., that In judging the Constitutional validity of the Act, the subsequent

events, namely, how the Act has worked out, have to be looked into. It can be supported only on

the test of direct and inevitable effect and, therefore, needs to be explained in some subsequent

decision.”

In view of the above we request your Excellency under Art 60 read with Art 51A of the

Constitution to do the following to protect the minority Archaka community comprising several

small denominational sects that form an important part of our cultural heritage and pluralistic

society by securing to them the LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship as

promised in the Preamble of our Constitution and due compensation for the deprivation of the

fundamental rights Art 21 read with Art 29(1), Art 19(1)(g), Art 25, Art 26 and Art 51A(f) of the

Constitution

1. The Book titled ‘GOVERNMENT RULES HINDU TEMPLES’ be referred to the

Supreme Court by the Hon’ble President under Art 143(1) read with Art 124(6) and Art

51A with the following questions for consideration:-

a. Since the constitutionality of the Act upheld in the A.S Narayana Deekshitulu v

State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1996 SC 1765) was subject to the implementation

of the orders of the Court in {(1997) 5 SCC 376} = AIR 1997 SC 3702 which

was clearly not implemented; Further the object of amendment Act 33 of 2007

based on orders of the Court and experience gained by Legislature to restore the

status of Archakas as it existed prior to enactment of the 1987 Act as recorded in

the disposal of Review Petition RPC 2350 of 1997 never materialized due to non-

implementation of amendment Act 33 of 2007; In view of the resultant clear

deprivation of the fundamental rights of the minority Archaka Community Art 21

read with Art 29(1), Art 19(1)(g), Art 25, Art 26 and Art 51A due to the direct

and inevitable effect of the way the AP Endowments Act 30/87 has worked out

leading to the impoverishment of the minority Archaka community as detailed in

the form of subsequent events in the Book titled ‘GOVERNMENT RULES

HINDU TEMPLES’; To arrive at a just compensation for the deprivation of

the fundamental rights of the minority Archaka Community should the AP

Endowments Act 30/87 be treated as unconstitutional during the period 28th

May 1987 to June 2nd

2014 as per the question of law in Namit Sharma vs

Union of India in WP No 210 of 2012 judgement dated 13th Sept 2012 read

with Art 39A of the Constitution ?

“In the case of Charan Lal Sahu v. UOI [(1990) 1 SCC 614 (667) (para 13),

MUKHERJEE, C.J. made an unguarded statement, viz., that In judging the

Constitutional validity of the Act, the subsequent events, namely, how the Act has

worked out, have to be looked into. It can be supported only on the test of direct

and inevitable effect and, therefore, needs to be explained in some subsequent

decision.”

Whether the ratio followed in the judgement in Balasubramania Sastri vs

Ponnusami Iyer of Madras High Court 45 Ind Cas 721 dated 29 April 1919 be

followed in arriving at due compensation to the impoverished Archaka

community for deprivation of their fundamental rights which lead to

impoverishment of the minority Archakas community as they were deprived of

the voluntary donations in various traditional forms as per custom and usage

from devotees as their income augmentation?

b. In view of the direct and inevitable effect of the Essential Practices Doctrine followed by the Supreme Court in A.S Narayana Deekshitulu v State of Andhra

Pradesh (AIR 1996 SC 1765) causing clear violation of the fundamental rights of the Archaka and devotee community Art 21 read with Art 29(1), Art 19(1)(g), Art 25, Art 26 and Art 51A(f) as demonstrated by the findings in the Book is there a need for a review of this doctrine as suggested in the Book? If So what corrective measures should be put in place in addition to having such cases always be dealt with by larger benches etc. in view of a number of important pending cases which raise fundamental questions of law

having deep impact on the Hindu Religion, Tradition and Culture impacting

purpose of life of millions of devotees? c. There is also, an unfortunate tendency, over the last three decades to dilute and

undermine clear pronouncements of the Constitution Benches of Hon’ble

Supreme Court on religious rights and practices by subsequent judgments of 2 or

3-judge benches. A clear and precise Presidential referendum would put an end

to the anomalies and inconsistencies brought out by conflicting judgments that

are “per incuriam”.

2. Once the advisory response to the above questions under Art 143(1) is received from the

Supreme Court we request Your Excellency to incorporate the advisory opinion and

further direct the Central Government to compute just compensation to the minority

Archaka Community for the deprivation of their fundamental rights and ensure that the

same is paid up by incorporating in the proposed Central Endowments Legislation or

through an amendment to the AP Bifurcation Act to give it a statutory effect.

Further the ratio of the Supreme Court judgement in the Chidambaram temple case [2014

(5) SCC 75] is to be ensured to be followed uniformly in all States; takeover of temples

only in case of proven mismanagement and that too for a limited period only through the

Central Endowments Legislation.

Further as part of the Central Endowments Legislation to have an autonomous Dharmika

Parishad with all powers of the Government in each State which includes Religious

Heads, Retired Judges of merit, Devotees of Repute, archakas and other stake holders to

regulate the general Temple Administration. The word ‘Regulation’ itself has been

clearly defined in this context by the Supreme Court in the Chidambaram temple case

[2014 (5) SCC 75] and this will have to be strictly adhered to.

The Central Endowments Legislation similar to the Wakf Act itself be drafted after due

consideration of all the recommendation of the C.P. Ramaswamy Iyer Commission report

which also has recommendations on proper remuneration for Archakas with due

consultation with all stake holders by convening a meeting of representatives of Shrines,

temples and religious leaders for evolving a new legal and organizational structure

ensuring governance of temples and other religious places to protect Hindu temples and

religious institutions from Governmentization, commercialization and to preserve and

augment their properties as is done for Wakf properties. It should also be ensured that

greater autonomy is provided to management of temples with income less than 1 Crores

so that they are exempt from several sections of the State Acts.

We request that your Excellency as keeper of Nation’s Dharma ensure that the principle ‘Yato

Dharmastatho Jayaha’ is preserved by doing justice to the minority Archaka Community through

suitable action on the above representation securing the ideals enshrined in the Preamble of our

Constitution.

Thanking You,

Yours Sincerely

( M.V. Soundararajan)

A NOTE ON TELANGANA SHARE OF ARREARS DUE TO RELIGIOUS

CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS FUNDS

1. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act of 2014 has specified that all Religious Charitable

and Endowments Funds be apportioned between the two successor States as per Population

Ratio i.e 58.32 : 41.68. The following are the relevant Sections of the Act.

a. Sec 52 (1) states that “The securities held in respect of the investments made from

Cash Balances Investment Account or from any Fund in the Public Account of the

existing State of AndhraPradesh as specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be

apportioned on the basis of population ratio of the successor States”

Item 64 of the Seventh Schedule entry referred in Sec 52(1) above reads as follows

“64. Religious Charitable Endowment Funds”

b. Sec 57 Proviso reads as follows “Provided that any civil deposits or loan funds or

charitable or other endowment fund maintained by the existing State of Andhra

Pradesh before the appointed day having jurisdiction over the entire State shall be

apportioned between the successor States on the basis of population ratio”

Thus by virtue of Sec 52(1) and Sec 57 read with item 64 of the Seventh Schedule of the

Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act of 2014 the State of Telangana is entitled to 41.68% of

the Religious and Charitable Endowments Funds.

2. As per the recent ‘Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (Revenue Sector)’

tabled in the AP Assembly on 6th Sept 2014 the following are the Religious and Charitable

Endowments Funds maintained as per Sec 8.1.3 titled “Financial Management”

3. The CAG report in Sec 8.1.17 has identified the total arrears due to the above Funds from

both the TTD and other Temples as follows

Thus the net arrears due from TTD and other Temples as per the CAG report is

17893.67 + 38792 + 18861 = 75546.67 Lakhs rounded to 756 Crores calculated from

2003-04 to 2012-13.

4. The Arrears for the period from 2012-2013 till June 2nd

2014 is to be calculated for TTD and

other Temples including also for the Archaka Welfare Fund which has also not been included

in the list of the Funds for which arrears is due from the TTD.

5. The ‘Report of the Committee on Service Issues of Temple Employees’ dated 5.1.2011 a

Committee constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.1303 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department dated

20-10-2010 and G.O.Ms.No. 1395 dated 24-11-2010 in Sec 5.1.7 has analyzed the dues from

TTD towards EAF and noted the following

As per the demand note of the Commissioner referred to by the Committee the total due from

1987-88 to 2003-2004 for both EAF and CGF from the TTD is to the tune of 254.54 Crores.

6. Thus the total identifiable arrears due from TTD and other major temples from 1987-88 to

2012-2013 based on the CAG report and the Report of the Committee on Service Issues of

Temple Employees is to the tune of over 1000 Crores while the arrears pending from TTD

and other major temples from 2012-2013 to June 2nd

2014 is yet to be ascertained.

7. The Hon’ble Minister for Legislative Affairs Sri Harish Rao had replied to a debate on the

floor of the Telangana Assembly on 26th

November 2014 reiterating the above facts and a

demand has been raised on the floor for settlement of the arrears due to the Telangana

Religious Charitable Endowments Funds as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh

Reorganization Act 2014.

8. It is also clear that the above arrears has not been inflation adjusted as even as early as 2003-

2004 the due from TTD itself was to the tune of 254.54 Crores similarly the CAG report has

also not actually adjusted the amounts due for inflation and this needs to be done to compute

the actual arrears due. The Temples Protection Movement Organization Convenor Sri M.V.

Soundararajan in his representation has estimated the total inflation adjusted amount due to

be to the tune of Rs. 1000 Crores towards the Telangana Religious Charitable Endowments

Funds.