The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Andhra Pradesh government why it should step into to manage a temple as it declined to consider its plea against the High Court's order, that state had no authority under law to appoint an executive officer to the Ahobilam Mutt temple, situated in the Kurnool district.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka told the counsel, representing the Andhra Pradesh government, the religious people should be allowed to handle this matter.
"Why is the state government stepping into this matter? Let the temple people deal with it...Why should religious places not be left to religious people,” the bench asked.
The court said Andhra Pradesh has no jurisdiction or entitlement under law to appoint an executive officer of the ‘Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam’, known as Ahobilam Mutt temple.
“In every case under Article 136 of the Constitution, we need not try to settle the law,” the bench said.
The top court refused to consider the appeal by the state government and others against the High Court's order. Advocates P B Suresh and Vipin Nair appeared for devotees to oppose the plea by the state government.
The High Court had said appointing an executive officer for the temple, which is a part of the Mutt, violated Article 26(d) of the Constitution as it affects the right of administration of Jeeyars’/Mathadipathis.
The Andhra Pradesh government and others had challenged the High Court's order passed on October 13, 2022.
The High Court held that since the Sri Ahobilam Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi Swamy Ahobilam Devasthanam has been associated with the Ahobilam Math due to common religious practices and involvement in administration, the subject temple is "necessarily a part and parcel, and an integral and inseparable part of the Ahobilam Math".
Thus, as per the High Court, only the Mathadipathi of the Ahobilam Math could be in charge of the administration of the subject temple, and not an Executive Officer appointed by the Commissioner of the State Endowments Department under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Religious Endowments and Charitable Institutions Act, 1987, it added.
The Andhra Pradesh government, in its plea, said that the finding of the High Court is ex-facie unsustainable and violative of basic principles of jurisprudence.
"In terms of settled Hindu Law jurisprudence, a Math is an independent juristic person," it said.
"Similarly, a temple is also an independent juristic person," it added.