NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has asked all those who challenged government control of temples to raise their grievances first before the respective the High Court.
Some of the pleas were pending before the apex court since 2009 and 2012, challenging the constitutionality of various provisions of the Hindu religious endowments laws of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Puducherry.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the petitioners to approach the respective high courts to assail the provisions.
SC on Temple Control: Petitioners Must First Move High Courts
Disposing of the petitions, the bench said it will allow the high courts to better appreciate the dimensions of the challenge of the provisions of the respective laws.
In the apex court, the Centre agreed with some state governments that petitions challenging government control of temples should first be heard by the respective high courts.
Govt Control of Temples: Supreme Court Directs Legal Challenge to HCs
Senior advocate J Sai Deepak, for the petitioners, contended that "the idea behind the filing of these petitions way back in 2009 was that the law can be laid down and the issue can be put to quietus across the board".
He asked the court to hear the petitioners in detail before arriving at any decision.
The Centre represented by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj contended that there are four legislations under challenge and in a particular state, the scheme of the act will be different. The matter will have to be first examined by the respective high courts, he said.
"Having regard to the challenge made to various provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Acts of the respective states, we find that the petitioners could be permitted to approach the respective high courts to assail the said provisions," the bench observed.
The bench said in these petitions, the provisions under challenge are not only about the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, but also the Pondicherry Act of 1932, as well as the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1987.
The bench felt that the better way of expressing the grievances of the petitioners is to assail the provisions of the respective laws before the respective jurisdictional high courts.
