<p>The high court on Monday dismissed a writ appeal relating to re-codifying the management and rituals at the Datta Peetha shrine in Chikkamagaluru district, where a tomb of Bababudan as well as padukas of Lord Dattatreya and Nandadeep are situated. </p>.<p>A division bench headed by Justice Alok Aradhe observed that the members of the Hindu and Muslim communities have made the religious institution a shining example of true secularism by their conduct.</p>.<p>The appeal was filed by Syed Moinuddin Shakhadri, challenging the September 28, 2021 order passed by the single bench.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/state/top-karnataka-stories/hc-upholds-validity-of-national-commission-for-homeopathy-act-1197305.html" target="_blank">HC upholds validity of National Commission for Homeopathy Act</a></strong><br /><br />The single bench had quashed the March 19, 2018 order passed by the then Congress government based on the recommendation of a high-level committee headed by retired high court judge Justice H N Nagamohan Das and directed the government to consider the issue afresh. </p>.<p>The 2018 government order had specified that rituals that were prevailing as on August 15, 1947, have to be continued and only the Mujawar appointed by the Shakhadri can enter the sanctum sanctorum of the cave shrine and distribute theertha to devotees as well as conduct the rituals.</p>.<p>The division bench observed that the 2018 order was contrary to the stand taken by the state government before the Supreme Court that the report of the Endowment Commissioner shall be considered by the cabinet. Instead, the government had appointed the high-level committee.</p>.<p>“We concur with the conclusion recorded by Learned Single Judge that the order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the State Government was violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as it prevented the Hindus from performing the Pooja as per their faith and compelled the Muzawar to offer Pooja contrary to his faith,” the bench said.</p>.<p>During the pendency of the appeal, the state government had taken the permission of the division bench and constituted an 8-member managing committee on November 18, 2022 for a period of three years. The representatives of all sections of the society had been included in this committee, with G H Hemanth Kumar as its chairman.</p>.<p>“The State Government has dealt with the sensitive issue in a pragmatic manner and has taken an action to manage the religious institution after consulting the representatives of both the communities. The committee constituted by the State Government is managing the affairs of the religious institution without any complaint from any section of the society. The subsequent orders passed during the pendency of the appeal regarding performance of the rites in the religious institution have not been assailed on the ground that either it is arbitrary or is violative of fundamental rights of any section of the society,” the division bench said, while declining to interfere with the order passed by the single judge bench.</p>
<p>The high court on Monday dismissed a writ appeal relating to re-codifying the management and rituals at the Datta Peetha shrine in Chikkamagaluru district, where a tomb of Bababudan as well as padukas of Lord Dattatreya and Nandadeep are situated. </p>.<p>A division bench headed by Justice Alok Aradhe observed that the members of the Hindu and Muslim communities have made the religious institution a shining example of true secularism by their conduct.</p>.<p>The appeal was filed by Syed Moinuddin Shakhadri, challenging the September 28, 2021 order passed by the single bench.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/state/top-karnataka-stories/hc-upholds-validity-of-national-commission-for-homeopathy-act-1197305.html" target="_blank">HC upholds validity of National Commission for Homeopathy Act</a></strong><br /><br />The single bench had quashed the March 19, 2018 order passed by the then Congress government based on the recommendation of a high-level committee headed by retired high court judge Justice H N Nagamohan Das and directed the government to consider the issue afresh. </p>.<p>The 2018 government order had specified that rituals that were prevailing as on August 15, 1947, have to be continued and only the Mujawar appointed by the Shakhadri can enter the sanctum sanctorum of the cave shrine and distribute theertha to devotees as well as conduct the rituals.</p>.<p>The division bench observed that the 2018 order was contrary to the stand taken by the state government before the Supreme Court that the report of the Endowment Commissioner shall be considered by the cabinet. Instead, the government had appointed the high-level committee.</p>.<p>“We concur with the conclusion recorded by Learned Single Judge that the order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the State Government was violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as it prevented the Hindus from performing the Pooja as per their faith and compelled the Muzawar to offer Pooja contrary to his faith,” the bench said.</p>.<p>During the pendency of the appeal, the state government had taken the permission of the division bench and constituted an 8-member managing committee on November 18, 2022 for a period of three years. The representatives of all sections of the society had been included in this committee, with G H Hemanth Kumar as its chairman.</p>.<p>“The State Government has dealt with the sensitive issue in a pragmatic manner and has taken an action to manage the religious institution after consulting the representatives of both the communities. The committee constituted by the State Government is managing the affairs of the religious institution without any complaint from any section of the society. The subsequent orders passed during the pendency of the appeal regarding performance of the rites in the religious institution have not been assailed on the ground that either it is arbitrary or is violative of fundamental rights of any section of the society,” the division bench said, while declining to interfere with the order passed by the single judge bench.</p>