Rajesh Pandey
While lamenting prolonged litigation, the Allahabad High Court has said that advocates and people from district administration should be kept away from the management and control of temples.
The court’s decision arose from a contempt application concerning the appointment of a receiver in a temple-related dispute from Mathura. The court was informed that there are currently 197 civil suits pending concerning temples in Mathura.
Disposing of a contempt petition filed by Devendra Kumar Sharma and another of Mathura district, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed, “People will lose faith if the temples and religious trusts are not managed and run by persons belonging to religious fraternity but by outsiders. Such actions should be prevented at the very beginning.”
The court further observed, “Now, the time has come when all these temples should be freed from the clutches of practicing advocates of Mathura Court and courts should make every endeavor to appoint, if necessary, a ‘Receiver’, who is connected with the management of a temple and has some religious leaning towards the deity. He should also be well-versed with the Vedas and Shastras. Advocates and people from district administration should be kept away from the management and control of these ancient temples. Efforts should be made for disposing of the suit, involving temple disputes at the earliest, and the matter should not linger for decades.”
The court came down heavily on the prevailing practice of appointing practicing advocates from Mathura to manage these temples, noting that this approach often leads to delays and prolongs the litigation process. The court added, “In these famous temples of Vrindavan, Govardhan, and Barasana, practicing advocates of Mathura court have been appointed Receivers. The interest of the Receiver lies in keeping the litigation pending. No effort is made to conclude the civil proceedings, as the entire control of temple administration vests in the hands of the Receiver. Most of the litigation is in respect of management of temples and appointment of Receivers.”
The court’s critique also extended to the broader issue of how receivership has become a common practice in Mathura, impacting the administration of many ancient and significant temples. The court argued that a practicing lawyer cannot dedicate the necessary time and devotion required for effective temple management and that such appointments have become a status symbol rather than a solution to the problems at hand.
The court thus said, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court requests the district judge, Mathura to take personal pain and inform his officers about this order and also make every endeavor to conclude the civil disputes regarding temples and trusts of district-Mathura as expeditiously as possible.”
The court in its judgment dated August 27 added, “Prolonging the litigation is only creating further disputes in temples and leading to indirect involvement of practicing advocates and district administration in the temples, which is not in the interest of the people having faith in Hindu religion.”
