'Against Idea Of Secularism': Deity Moves Allahabad High Court Challenging 'UP Bankey Bihari Temple Trust Ordinance'

The plea, filed by Shri Bankey Bihari, the presiding deity, along with Shebaits and members of the Sakhi Sect of the Haridasi Sampradaya, argues that the ordinance directly encroaches on their legal and constitutional rights and is in complete violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 25, 26, and 300A of the Constitution of India.

The matter will be heard by a division bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Manjive Shukla tomorrow. It may be noted that the presiding Deity has moved the HC through Gyanendra Goswami and Rasik Raj Goswami, the Shebait of 'Shri Banke Bihari Ji'.

The plea submits that the Ordinance violates the Preamble to the Constitution of India, particularly the idea of secularism, which essentially restricts the State from participating actively and passively in matters of religion.

Calling the ordinance a "colourable exercise of powers", the petition states that what the State could not have done directly (e.g., build a temple from State funds), it is now attempting to do indirectly by "taking complete control over the assets and administration of the already existing temple".

"…in the guise of an independent Trust, is taking over temple assets, including the Idol / Deity, and handing it over to State agents, who have unbridled rights to alienate / transfer the assets to third parties", the plea states.

A major grievance raised in the petition concerns the composition of the Board of Trustees under the Ordinance, which comprises 18 members, 11 nominated and 7 ex-officio, all to be appointed by the State Government. 

The petition, moved through Advocate Lokesh Bhardwaj, describes the Trust as "not autonomous, but appears to be a state agency which has been put in place to function at the instance of the State."

According to the petition, the temple is a private one founded, developed, and managed by the members of the Sakhi Sect of Haridasi Sampradaya, a religious denomination protected under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. It also submits that the present Goswamis/Shebaits trace their lineage to Swami Jagannath, brother of Swami Hari Das, who founded the Idol / Deity in the 16th century.

The petition describes in detail the religious traditions followed by the Sakhi Sect of Haridasi Sampradaya and underscores the significance of the exclusive hereditary rights of Shebaits in the sewa-puja (worship) of the Deity.

It argues that just because the deity's darshan is open to the public, it does not change the nature of the temple from private to public.

"The State having no religion of its own and having been detached from the idea of religion itself can never be expected to protect, preserve and preach the idea of the Sakhi sect of the Haridasi Sampradaya, which is a religious denomination protected under Article 26 of the Constitution. This itself is enough to disqualify the state to be entrusted with the responsibility of endowment", the plea states.

Further, the petition challenges the very composition of the Board of Trustees, saying that the 3 members to be nominated from Vaishnav Sampradaya do not necessarily need to be from the Sakhi Sect, and the 3 members to be nominated from non-Vaishnav traditions can never be expected to uphold the teachings of a rather opposite school of thinking.

Raising concerns over the State's role in the appointment of priests, the petition argues: "How can a State which otherwise has a contradictory interest to that of religion, be expected to play a fair role in the appointment of Priests, who are at the face of the religion itself".

The petition also alleges discrimination under Article 14, challenging the de-classification of the Sakhi Sect to include other Sampradayas. It also points to the absence of similar takeovers of mosques, churches and gurudwaras. The plea also states:

"There clearly cannot be any difference between a rich God and a poor God. If the State endeavors to maintain a rich God, it shall also be the duty of the State to maintain the poor God".

Against this backdrop, the petition prays for declaring the Ordinance unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g), 25, 26, and 300A, as well as the basic structure of the Constitution of India.

It also prays that the state be directed not to interfere in the administration and management of the Shri Banke Bihari and permit the incumbent shebaits / goswamis to manage and administer them as per their respective turns.

In related news, the Allahabad High Court today continued to criticise the Uttar Pradesh Government's move to bring an Ordinance proposing a statutory trust to manage the historic Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan (Mathura), remarking that the government was committing a 'sin'.

This remark has come two days after the Supreme Court also questioned the UP government's "tearing hurry" in promulgating the Ordinance for taking over management of the Bankey Bihari temple in Vrindavan, Mathura.

During the July 30 hearing, the same bench had made scathing remarks against the Ordinance and questioned the constitutional propriety of the State Government for attempting to enter the religious domain.

It had orally remarked thus:

"Ye hum allow nahi karenge ki State ko religion mein enter karne dein. I will ask the government how is government entering into religion…(to state) Aap bahar ki vyavastha dekhiye, andar mat ghusiye…Aap scheme of administration banaiye (temple ki), but aapka aadmi nahi hoga andar…Constitution ka koi religion nahi hai, government ka koi religion nahi hai to kyu ghuss rahe hain?" [Translation: We will not allow the State to enter into religion. I will ask the government as to how is the government entering into religion?...(to the State) You look after the external arrangements; do not enter the internal [affairs]…you may frame a scheme of administration (of the temple), but your person will not be inside…the Constitution has no religion, the Government has no religion, then why are you interfering?]

The Court had further remarked that the Hindu religion is the most affected. He said:

"…iss desh mei hindu ke saath mazak ho raha hai…aap Tirupati Temple manage kar rahe h, aap Vaishno Devi manage kar rahe, ek mosque ek church mahi manage kar rahe…dont get into religion". [Translation : (to state) you are managing the Tirupati Temple, you are managing Vaishno Devi, but you are not managing even a single mosque or church…don't get into religion.]

The Court had also slammed the internal temple managers (Goswamis), accusing them of ruining the sanctity of the temple and chasing money.