Thread by @People4Dharma

82. Mr. Dattar requested that the proposal which will be submitted tomorrow by Mr. Venugopal, would require suggestions from the Bench as well.

83. To this, Justice Lalit responded that the Bench would only require inputs from all counsels and proposals that are made keeping everyone's interest in mind.

84. With this Mr. Dattar ended his final submissions.

85. Mr. @jsaideepak commenced his final closing submissions. He began by thanking the Bench for a patient hearing in the matter and submitted that it was an educative experience to argue before the Bench.

86. Mr. @jsaideepak then proceeded to draw the Bench's attention to Sections 20-23 of the TCHRI Act 1950. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that he would be making his submissions in the backdrop of these provisions.

87. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that angst & anxiety of Thanthri & devotees are 2 fold - (a) the tradition & religious practices of Temple must be protected & (b) tradition must not be used as pretext to deflect attention frm issues relating to administration

88. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that it was not the position of either the Thanthri or the devotees that transparency and accountability could be brushed under the carpet citing tradition.

89. Mr. @jsaideepak that it was the categorical position of the parties he represents that while tradition must be protected, adequate mechanisms must be placed for ensuring proper fiscal management of the Temple.

90. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that the idea behind his submissions was not to esotericise the case to such an extent that legitimate expectations of proper management are scuttled or brushed under the carpet.

91. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that his limited position was that TCHRI Act 1950 itself provides for a structure of administration which allows for building in audit safeguards without diluting traditional administrative structure which was protected by Covenant and TCHRI Act 1950

92. Mr. @jsaideepak that it was possible to support the traditional administrative structure with adequate auditing checks and balances without diluting the rights of the traditional stakeholders in the #PadmanabhaswamyTemple.

93. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that just as tradition cannot be used as a pretext to evade expectations of proper management, tradition cannot be diluted either for eternity by re-writing the history of the Temple in the name of proper management.

94. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that any proposal given by any party from whichever stakeholder or State which dilutes traditional administrative structure that is protected by TCHRI Act & is product of Covenant, would defeat entire object behind position of Tantri & devotees

95. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that it cannot be anybody's position that they admit the historical relationship between Travancore Family and the Temple which is protected by Covenant and the TCHRI Act 1950, and then put forth a proposal before the Court which dilutes that nexus

96. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that acceptance of Constitutionally recognised and statutorily protected rights of Travancore Family on one hand, and on the other hand also accepting any proposal which dilutes those rights, cannot go hand in hand.

97. Mr. @jsaideepak then drew the Court's attention to the traditional administrative structure protected by Sections 20-23 of the TCHRI Act 1950

98. Mr. @jsaideepak pointed that Section 20(1) expressly provided for a committee which shall "advise" the Ruler in the discharge of "his" functions, which clearly recognises that the role of Committee is advisory and the functions are that of the Ruler.

99. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that the Ruler cannot even completely delegate the functions without any supervision and oversight by him considering that it is his duty to discharge those functions in relation to the Temple.

100. Mr. @jsaideepak then point out that the Committee shall have three Hindu members who shall be nominated by the Ruler from the Travancore Family, and the members shall hold office for such term as the Ruler may determine.

101. Mr. @jsaideepak then pointed out that the Ruler also had the right to appoint the chairman of the Committee from among the three members.

102. Mr. @jsaideepak pointed that the Committee is required to meet once in a quarter in Trivandrum and their expenses shall be paid for by the Ruler.

103. Mr. @jsaideepak pointed out Section 22(1) which clearly demonstrated that the Executive Officer appointed by the Ruler was not part of the Committee, but was the Secretary to the Committee.

104. Mr. @jsaideepak therefore submitted that the structure under the Act consisted of five people, the Ruler, the Executive Officer and the Three-member Committee to advise the Ruler in discharge of his functions

105. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that who can be part of the Committee to strike a balance between tradition and administrative requirements is left to the discretion of the Ruler.

106. However, Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that to protect the religious practices of the Temple, the Thanthri of the Temple, who is final authority on the tradition, must be part of the Committee

@jsaideepak 107. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that the remaining two members of the Committee, bearing in mind the need for professional accounting standards to be maintained, professionals such as Chartered Accountants or an Auditor could be appointed.

@jsaideepak 108. Mr @jsaideepak submitted that these were tentative suggestions and that a detailed audit-related guideline was being prepared by his team in consultation with chartered accountants and Auditors, which will be filed as a separate chapter in his written submissions.

@jsaideepak 109. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that typically in banks an audit query has to be resolved in 6 months. It is possible to apply the accounting standards of a trust to the Temple and ensure that Executive Officer and the Committee are held responsible for lapses in administration.

@jsaideepak 110. Mr. @jsaideepak further submitted that to prevent entrenchment of the EO and the member of the Committee, their tenure must not exceed three years and the EO cannot hold more than two terms.

@jsaideepak 111. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that all these suggestions will be sufficiently fleshed out in his written submissions. He, however, submitted that the underlying sentiment behind his submissions was this -

@jsaideepak 111A. ever since the promulgation of HRCE legislations in Southern India, and not South India, the State has entrenched itself in Hindu Religious Institutions.

@jsaideepak 112. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that the fundamental fear is that the State Government of Kerala will use this case to entrench itself in yet another Temple of importance, which is a phenomenon that has played itself out in Kerala and other Southern States.

@jsaideepak 113. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that apart from protecting the Tradition of the #PadmanabhaswamyTemple and ensuring proper management, they also wish to prevent entrenchment of the State Government of Kerala in the Temple -

@jsaideepak 113A. given the experience of the Sabarimala Temple where State entrenchment has resulted in the current state of affairs.

@jsaideepak 114. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that contrary to popular perception, State entry into Temples results in loss of treasures, loss of accountability and loss of community administration.

@jsaideepak 115. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that the State is that tenant who never vacates when it enters religious institutions, especially Temples. He submitted that it becomes almost impossible to dislodge or evict this tenant from Temples.

@jsaideepak 116. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that therefore it is his position that public interest can be secured through putting in place proper audit mechanisms.

@jsaideepak 117. However protecting public interest need not, should not and cannot translate to inviting the State to entrench itself or facilitating such entrenchment.

@jsaideepak 118. Mr. @jsaideepak that the State may even undertake an audit, but it must not be allowed to get comfortable in a religious institution.

@jsaideepak 119. Mr. @jsaideepak pointed out the example of the abysmal management of Temples in Tamil Nadu ever since the TN HRCE Act 1959 facilitated entrenchment of executive officers.

@jsaideepak 120. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that in close to 39000 Temples in Tamil Nadu, the HRCE department of that State had appointed executive officers under Section 45 of the TN HRCE Act 1959, in over 34000 Temples,

@jsaideepak 120A. - each of which has an annual income of less than INR 10,000 which begs the question as to what is the State doing in such Temples.

@jsaideepak 121. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that the very context in which the Chidambaram Temple judgement was delivered in January 2014 was the indiscriminate appointment of Executive Officers in Temples across Tamil Nadu under Section 45 of the TN HRCE Act

@jsaideepak 121A. - without any orders specifying the reason for their appointment or the tenure of their appointment.

@jsaideepak 122. Mr. @jsaideepak that once the reason for the appointment of an Executive Officer under HRCE legislations ceases to exists, which is to cure mismanagement, he or she must vacate the Temple without delay.

@jsaideepak 122A. - However, the position of Executive Officer in Temples has become a cozy position for unjust and illegal enrichment.

@jsaideepak 123. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that it was not his intention to paint any organ or arm of the State in poor light. He submitted that it was however impossible to ignore the mountain of evidence

@jsaideepak 123A. - which shows the State in extremely poor light when it comes to its conduct in Hindu Religious Institutions.

@jsaideepak 124. At this point, Mr. Arvind Datar supported Mr. @jsaideepak's submissions.

@jsaideepak 125. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that under the British when HRCE legislation was introduce in the Madras Presidency for the first time in the 1850s, the legislation applied to both Hindus and Muslims only with respect to endowed properties.

@jsaideepak 125A. - Subsequently it was made applicable only to Hindus and only with respect to endowed properties.

@jsaideepak 126. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that it was in independent secular India that only Hindu Religious Institutions were subject to invasive State control where both endowed properties and the properties owned by the Temples are controlled by HRCE legislations.

@jsaideepak 127. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that the HRCE framework is effectively a license permit Raj where the HRCE commissioner has to approve the budget of the Temple before any amount is spent on any activity, religious or secular.

@jsaideepak 128. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that such a framework existed only with respect to Hindu Religious Institutions.

@jsaideepak 129. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that under the existing HRCE framework, every religious activity is a puppet which is connected by secular strings to the master puppeteer, which is the State.

@jsaideepak 130. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that the distinction between secular activities and religious activities is an artificial distinction which has facilitated State entrenchment as opposed to limiting it.

@jsaideepak 131. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that this is because it was not possible to perform any activity in the Temple without the use of money, which is a secular resource.

@jsaideepak 131A. The State cites the use of this secular resource as a pretext to stamp its authority, thereby holding the religious activity at ransom.

@jsaideepak 132. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that when the secular resources of a Temple are in the hands of a political appointee such as the Executive Officer, the Temple becomes subservient to political interest & cited the example of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) in this regard.

@jsaideepak 133. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that while the TTD is held an example for management of crowds and queues, the issues which relate to State interference with its management, indulgence of VVIPs and loss of treasures are glossed over -

@jsaideepak 133A. - most which is a direct consequence of State interference with such important institutions

@jsaideepak 134. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that if the Court were to review the status of Temples under State control, it would become evident that devotees have enough reasons to shed tears of blood -

@jsaideepak 134A. when they see their religious institutions being systematically degraded and undermined in the name of proper management by the State.

@jsaideepak 135. Mr. @jsaideepak therefore submitted that in assessing and examining any proposal for State interference which may be proposed by the State Government of Kerala or any other stakeholder -

@jsaideepak 135A. the Court must consider the abysmal track record of State in governing religious institutions, especially Temples.

@jsaideepak 136. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that the issue of State entrenchment in Hindu Religious Institutions in not dependent on whether any institution enjoys denominational status under Article 26.

@jsaideepak 137. Mr. @jsaideepak submitted that, in other words, the State has no business running religious institutions of any faith, which is the mandate of the Constitution.

@jsaideepak 138. Mr. @jsaideepak then drew the Court's attention to Article 31A(1)(b) of the Constitution.

@jsaideepak 139. Mr. @jsaideepak pointed out that under Article 31A(1)(b), the State could pass a law which allows for take over any private property for a limited period of time for the purposes of proper management and in public interest,

@jsaideepak 139A. and such a law would not be deemed to violate Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution.

@jsaideepak 140. Mr. @jsaideepak pointed that while Article 31A(1)(b) exempted such laws from being challenged on grounds of violation of Articles 14 & 19, they could be challenged on grounds of violation of Articles 25, 26 & 29

@jsaideepak 140A. - since such laws would impact religious institutions and rights of devotees.

@jsaideepak 141. Mr. @jsaideepak then pointed out that in Southern States, especially in TN, Temples paid 18% as a cut from the revenues of the Temple in the name of a "fee" for performance of administrative and audit services,

@jsaideepak 141A. - which they haven't performed for several years in thousands of Temples. And yet the government has continued to collect that cut.