The Supreme Court will hear on July 9 the contentious issue concerning livelihood of 70,000 priests, hundreds of temples, its properties and trusts, which had been a bone of contention for the past one decade in Karnataka.

A Bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and P K Balasubramanyan fixed the State of Karnataka v Sri Sahasra Lingeshwara Temple case for hearing when Counsel Kashi Vishveshwar, appearing for the Archaks (priests), Akhila Karnataka Hindu Devalayagalu Archakara Agamikar and Upadivanthara Federation and Vaikhnsa Mandali, submitted that Karnataka government might retrench services of a large number of priests from hundreds of temples. The petition said the State government, in its application (SLP), had kept the court in dark about the formation of a high-powered committee headed by Justice M Rama Jois to look into the grievances of the priests and other members of the temples.

Notification
The State authorities also did not inform the court about a notification on January 20 in Kannada daily 'Prajavani' seeking suggestions for modifications in the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and the rules framed there under in 2002.

''Karnataka had filed an SLP challenging the division Bench order before the court without disclosing the steps and measures undertaken by the government in due deference with the order of the court.''  Taking advantage of the said interim order the Department of Endowment has issued instructions on May 5, 2007 , issued by the Office of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Department, Bangalore to all the Deputy Commissioners to constitute managing committees for the temples under the Act, which was struck down by the High Court, the petition said.

The Karnataka High Court on September 20, 2006 had allowed appeals by scores of temples and struck down the Karnataka Hindu Charitable Endowment Act of 1997.

The temples had challenged the single judge order, saying it was discriminatory and was not uniformly applicable to all religious institutions as it would affect more than 70,000 priests, which they had been persuading hereditarily for generations.

The appellants had contended that the act was flawed and discriminatory and that it targeted at only a few religious establishments and that it did not cover Mutts and other religious institutions.

The single judge had said 5 per cent of the annual income of the temple would go to the common pool fund.
This fund would not go to the general fund of the Government but be used for establishing Agama and Veda Pathashalas. Every notified institution under the Act was entitled to seek such aid. Striking down the Act, the court had said that any Act could not be selective in its application.