38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, April 15, 2024

Uttarakhand HC upholds constitutional validity of Uttarakhand Char Dham Devasthanam Management Act

By Shreedhara Purohit      27 July, 2020 05:22 PM      0 Comments
Uttarakhand HC upholds constitutional validity of Uttarakhand Char Dham Devasthanam Management Act

In a big blow to the ongoing “Free Temples from Govt. Control” movement, Uttarakhand High Court on July 21 ratified the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ruled the State Government’s takeover of 51 temples including Kedarnath and Badrinath temples. Upholding the controversial Char Dham Devasthanam Management Act, Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, and Justice R C Khulbe, dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and Gangotri Mandir Samiti, challenging the constitutional validity of the Act passed by BJP Government in September 2019. However, the Judges “read down” the Sec 22 of the Act regarding the provisions of the land acquisition by the newly constituted body.

The court ruled that the ownership of the temple properties would vest in Char Dham shrines and power of the Board would be confined only to the administration and management of the properties. The High Court order (Conclusion of the 129 page Order) stated: “Except to the limited extent that the words ‘shall devolve’ (regarding ownership of temple properties) in Section 22 (of Char Dham Devasthanam Management Board Act, 2019) must be read as ‘devolve on the Char Dham and shall be maintained by the Board’, and the words ‘may further acquire land’… shall be read as ‘may further acquire land on behalf of the Char Dham’, the challenge to the validity of the 2019 Act, on the ground that it violates Articles 14, 25, 26, and 31-A of the Constitution of India, must fail … the properties of the Char Dham temples shall continue to vest in it, as declared in Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act … and the power of the Board would thereby be confined only to the administration and management of the properties of the Char Dham Devasthanam…”.

With these observations, the High Court dismissed both the writ petitions, one filed by Subramanian Swamy and the other by Sri Five Mandir Samiti Gangotri Dham.

During the hearing, Swamy submitted that the 2019 Act is blatantly unconstitutional, it is palpably flawed and suffers from grave legal infirmities.

He also sought to draw a distinction between the Somnath, Shirdi Sai Baba and Vaishno Devi temples on the one hand, and the temples brought within the ambit of the 2019 Act on the other, contending that, while the former are individual temples, the latter covers a large number of temples.

It was contended on behalf of the respondents that under Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act all the properties of the temple vest in the temple itself and the ownership rights have not been divested from it or vested in the board.

"Section 22 merely confers a right on the board regarding matters which were hitherto being exercised by the State Government, local bodies and others," the respondents had submitted.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy appeared party-in-person along with Advocate Manisha Bhandari. Senior Counsel Rajendra Dobhal, assisted by Advocate Devang Dobhal, appeared for Sri 5 Mandir Samiti Gangotri Dham.

Advocate General SN Babulkar, assisted by Chief Standing Counsel Paresh Tripathi, appeared for the State of Uttarakhand.

Standing Counsel DCS Rawat appeared for the Union of India. Advocate Ravi Babulkar appeared for another respondent. Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta appeared for Intervener Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra.

The two pleas had challenged the constitutional validity of the Uttarakhand Char Dham Devasthanam Management Act, 2019, which allows the state government to take over the management of the Char Dhams and 51 other temples in the hill state. 

Share this article:

Leave a feedback about this

Trending Legal Insiders
Need to safeguard judiciary from unwarranted pressures: 21 ex-judges write letter to CJI

21 ex-judges write to CJI Chandrachud urging protection of judiciary from pressures undermining its integrity and autonomy.

15 April, 2024 12:17 PM
Trending Judiciary
SC notice to ED; declines early date on plea by Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal against arrest

SC issues notice to ED, declines early hearing on Delhi CM Kejriwal's plea against arrest in liquor scam.

15 April, 2024 03:08 PM


Trending Judiciary
Location sharing of accused as bail condition: SC directs Google to explain how its PIN location-sharing work

Supreme Court directs Google to explain its PIN location-sharing feature as bail condition for accused, raising privacy concerns. Details sought on technical aspects.

09 April, 2024 02:06 PM
Trending Judiciary
'Can't jail everyone for making allegations against CM,' SC tells Tamil Nadu government

Supreme Court rebukes Tamil Nadu, saying not everyone making allegations against CM can be jailed; restores bail for YouTuber Sattai.

09 April, 2024 02:07 PM
Trending Judiciary
HC dismisses Kejriwal's plea challenging arrest by ED in liquor policy case

Delhi High Court dismisses Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by ED in liquor policy case, ruling it legal. Kejriwal remains in Tihar jail pending Supreme Court relief.

09 April, 2024 05:22 PM
Trending Judiciary
SC allows man to undergo potency test as wife claims marriage not consummated more than 7 years of alliance [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court permits potency test for husband in divorce case where wife alleges marriage unconsummated after 7+ years.

09 April, 2024 05:38 PM


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email