Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 636 (KAR)

B. S. Ananth v. State of Karnataka

2010-05-25

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2010
Judgment Petitioners claim to perform duties of Archaks in different temples, concerned with the protection of respective agamas, tradition, sampradaya as also hindutva, archakship and its religious sacrosanct and sentimental values. Petitioners state that they are not Pandits in Vedas but are in the habit of visiting temples frequently to attend poojas, homes, etc., and in that process, having learnt to chant Vedas, hymns, participate in other religious offerings like yagnas, homas, poojas, etc. It is the allegation of the petitioners that social values and faith in the youth of the present generation are eroded due to the influence of western culture necessitating the preservation of sanctity and sincerity in the performance of religious rights and duties. Petitioners claim that for an ordinary Hindu, they are the only messengers to God so as to reach God and seek His blessings. It is further stated that the State of Karnataka formed a Samithi named “Karnataka State Agama Shikshana and Pareeksha Salaha Samithi” to ensure proper education and training to incumbents to become good disciplined purohits. It is stated that the Karnataka Government framed Rules/Regulations which the said committee was required to abide in the matter of imparting education in Sanskrit and Agama Shikshana. According to the petitioners, the Karnataka Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short ‘Act’), prescribes that for a person to qualify to be an archak or an agamika, will have to undergo the courses namely ‘Pravara’ and ‘Praveena’ and pass the prescribed examinations conducted by the 3rd respondent. 2. It is the allegation of the petitioner that many Colleges impart education in this field, in and around Bangalore, and all over Karnataka, without there being a control on the system of education i.e., syllabus, curriculum, practicals, pre-requisite qualification, etc. It is stated that the Government though framed Rules in the matter of imparting education in Sanskrit for the courses namely ‘pravara’ and ‘praveena’ and the conduct of the examination controlled by a Salaha Samithi, nevertheless did not frame rules relating to appointment of members to the said Samithi. It is stated that the Government though framed Rules in the matter of imparting education in Sanskrit for the courses namely ‘pravara’ and ‘praveena’ and the conduct of the examination controlled by a Salaha Samithi, nevertheless did not frame rules relating to appointment of members to the said Samithi. The members of the Committee were hand picked, chosen by the State, without prescribing qualification, to represent various segments of Hindutva, the State appointed a retired IAS Officer as the Chairman of the said committee, whence petitioners 3 to 6 filed W.P.No.20665/1999 which when treated as a PIL, a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 8.7.2002 Annexure-“A”, observed that the Government would comply with the rules in future, and dismissed the petition. 3. Petitioners assert that the State Government did not comply with the undertaking in the PIL to frame rules relating to constitution, appointment and selection of members of the “Agama Shikshana and Pariksha Salaha Samithi” and disbanned the Samithi constituted earlier. Petitioners further allege that this led to a chaotic situation, by which the studies in agama, archakship and thantrasara agama became an empty formality, leading to filing W.P.No.44796/2003, whence a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 3.2.2006 Annexure-“B”, directed the State represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department (Muzrai) and the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowment, to pursue with the Law Department, the pending draft rules and ensure framing necessary rules, regulations and syllabus for ‘Pravara’ and ‘Praveena’ courses duly prescribing the eligibility criteria for admission to such courses etc., by taking into consideration the grievance of the petitioners. 4. In compliance thereof, the State Government, by order dated 6.11.2007 Annexure-“C”, constituted the “Karnataka State Agama Shikshana and Pareeksha Samithi”, consisting of a President, Member Secretary, four members and a special invitee. The second respondent was appointed as President and the Headquarters Assistant as Member Secretary, while the Principal of the Government Maharaja Sanskrit College, Mysore and Agama Pundits of the Religious Endowment Department as its members. 5. According to the Petitioners the order casts a duty on the Samithi to ensure that the two courses ‘Pravara’ and ‘Praveena’ are conducted properly and correctly and examinations held. 5. According to the Petitioners the order casts a duty on the Samithi to ensure that the two courses ‘Pravara’ and ‘Praveena’ are conducted properly and correctly and examinations held. The State Government by the order dated 6.11.2007, Annexure-‘D’, constituted another Committee by name “Karnataka State Agama Salaha Samithi”, of which the 3rd respondent was the President; the 4th Respondent Principal the Member Secretary; and Respondents 5 to 14 its members, to advice the Commissioner for Religious Endowments as and when necessary. 6. The petitioners, characterizing the constituting of Karnataka State Agama Salaha Samithi as “baseless, unwarranted and unnecessary” have presented this petition to quash the Government order dated 6.11.2007 Annexure-“D” as arbitrary, illegal and unjust. 7. The petition is opposed by filing Statement of objections dated 17.11.2009 of Respondent No.2 interalia contending that in compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.20665/1999 and W.P.44796/2003, the Government has framed Rules vide Notification dated 3.5.2008 to constitute two samithis called “Karnataka Agama Shikshana Salaha Samithi” and “Agama Pareeksha Samithi” stipulating their respective powers and functions. The ‘Agama Salaha Samithi’ it is stated has a limited role of advising the Endowment Commissioner whenever circumstances warrant. The Salaha Samithi, it is stated is not vested with powers relating to conduct of Agama classes or examinations, and hence denies the contention that the Salaha Samithi is reintroduced with vested interest to meddle with the conduct of the ‘Pravara’ and ‘Praveena’ courses. It is further stated that, the respondents 3, 7 to 14 appointed as President and Members, respectively of the Salaha Samithi, in respect of which no educational qualification are prescribed, nevertheless are well known in performing poojas, Aradhana, Powrohithya in the respective agamas. It is specifically contended that the Salaha Samithi being an advisory committee having no power to interfere with the conduct of examinations, to ‘Pravara and ‘Praveena’ courses, which is the exclusive domain of the “Karnataka State Agama Shikshana and Pariksha Samithi”, constituted under the order dated 6.11.2007 Annexure-‘C’, there is neither illegality nor arbitrariness in the constitution of the Salaha Samithi. According to the State, the order Annexure-‘D’ impugned, does not impinge upon the rights of the petitioners nor is violative of the religious rights. It is further stated that the advise of the committee need not necessarily be acted upon by the Commissioner and therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners is baseless and without substance. According to the State, the order Annexure-‘D’ impugned, does not impinge upon the rights of the petitioners nor is violative of the religious rights. It is further stated that the advise of the committee need not necessarily be acted upon by the Commissioner and therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners is baseless and without substance. The contention of the petitioners that the order impugned confers certain privileges on Respondents 3 to 14 is mischievous in the light of the fact that the Salaha Samithi is not empowered to conduct the ‘pravara’ and ‘praveena’ course or hold examinations, thereof, except to advice the Commissioner as and when warranted. The Salaha Samithi, it is said, having not been empowered to prescribe syllabus for agama classes or conduct exams, the contention that unqualified persons are appointed to give suggestions in the matter of conducting agama course and exams is far from truth. In that view of the matter, it is stated that there is neither arbitrariness nor violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused he pleadings and examined the order impugned. Undoubtedly, the State complied with its obligation and undertaking before the Division Bench in the Public Interest Litigation as also before the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.44796/2003 filed by a large number of interested persons, by framing The “Karnataka Agama Shikshana Salaha Samiti and Agama Pareeksha Samithi” Rules, 2008 (for short Rules) 9. Rule 3(1) provides for the Constitution of Agama Shikshana Salaha Samithi, for short “Salaha Samiti”, to consist of a Chairman appointed by the State from among non-official members; the Deputy Director of Public Instructions (Sanskrit Section) a Member; The Principal Government Sanskrit College, Melkote, Member; seven non-official members nominated by the State to represent each of the seven Agamas namely Shivagama, Pancharatragama, Tantrasaragama, Vaikhanasagama, Veerashaivagama, Vathulagama, and Jainagama; of which one shall be a person belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and a woman. The Principal & Maharaja Sanskrit College, Mysore is the Member Secretary. The proviso thereto states that preference may be given to those who are qualified in sanskrit or retired officers well-versed in Sanskrit. The term of office is three years from the date of its Constitution. 10. The Principal & Maharaja Sanskrit College, Mysore is the Member Secretary. The proviso thereto states that preference may be given to those who are qualified in sanskrit or retired officers well-versed in Sanskrit. The term of office is three years from the date of its Constitution. 10. Rule 4(1) provides for restrictions in the appointment of non-official members, in that the persons to be nominated as such, must have:- (a) passed Praveena examination in the concerned Agama; (b) passed Vidwath Uttama in Shastra; (c) attained the age of 40 years; (d) knowledge of Kannada language to read and write; (e) files an affidavit to the effect that there are no criminal cases against him. Rule 4(3) denies a person from becoming a member of the Salaha Samiti, for more than two terms. Rule 4(4) stipulates that a member of the Salaha Samiti shall to be appointed as an oral examiner or valuator for the Agama Examination. 10. Rule5 sets out the procedure for constitution of the “Salaha Samiti”. Two months before the expiry of the term of the said Samiti, the Member Secretary is required to notify the proposed constitution of the Samiti and call for applications in the specified form from persons interested in becoming non-official members and consider such of these applications filed within time. The publication is to be made by affixing copy of the notification on the notice boards of all Deputy Commissioners of the District, Offices of Sanskrit Colleges and Patashalas where Agama Shikshana is taught; offices of Assistant Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments at the District; and office of the Commissioner, for Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowments, Bangalore. Rule 5(3) requires the Secretary to scrutinize all the applications and to forward to the commissioner the applications which fulfill all the requirements of the Rules of eligibility. Rule 5(4) states that the Commissioner shall verify the application and forward the same to the state along with his recommendation. 12. Rule 7 provides for the powers and functions of the Salaha Samiti. Under Sub-Rule (1) the Samiti is responsible to ensure standard of education in Agama and to implement guidelines or directions issued by the state government from time to time. 12. Rule 7 provides for the powers and functions of the Salaha Samiti. Under Sub-Rule (1) the Samiti is responsible to ensure standard of education in Agama and to implement guidelines or directions issued by the state government from time to time. Sub-Rule (2) states that the Samiti shall offer its recommendation and opinion in respect of (a) Syllabus for Agama classes; (b) Admission of students and policy for admission; (c) Publication of Agama Literature; and (d) Teaching method in institution. Under Sub-Rule (3) the Samiti is required to render its opinion within three months of the Commissioner’s request, in respect of recognition of new Agama Schools/Pathashalas, which opinion should not be contrary to any of the norms specified by the Government. The proviso to Sub-Rule(3) relates to Headquarters of the Salaha Samiti, its quorum for the meeting etc. 13. Rule 11 provides for dissolution of the Salaha Samiti and Rule 12 for appointment of an Administrator, while Rule 13 financial powers. 14. Rule 14 provides for constitution of the Agama Pareeksha samiti, for short ‘Pareeksha Samiti’, for the purpose of holding examination and announcing results, and to function under the direct control of the ‘Salaha Samiti’. 15. The Pariksha Samithi constituted by order dated 6.11.2007 Annexure-‘C’ of the State Government, in terms of the Rules, is empowered to conduct and hold examination for the courses in ‘Pravara’ and ‘Praveena’. The petitioners have no grievance over the constitution of the said Samithi, as they are neither members nor invited to be a special invitee of the said Samithi. 16. The Salaha Samithi constituted by order dated 6.11.2007 Annexure-‘D’, of the State Government, in terms of the ‘Rules 2008’ vide notification dated 3.5.2008, of which Respondents 3 to 14 are the President, Member Secretary and members respectively may prescribe the syllabus, for each agama class, under sub-Rule (1) of Rule 9, but under Sub-Rule (2), is required to send the draft syllabus to the Commissioner along with its views for concurrence of the state, whereafter the syllabus shall be deemed to be approved. The Salaha Samiti is required to only offer its recommendation and opinion relating to Syllabus, eligibility criteria for admission and conduct of examination to ‘Pravara’ and ‘Praveena’ courses, and to advice the Commissioner for Endowment, in accordance with the Rules extracted supra. The Salaha Samiti is required to only offer its recommendation and opinion relating to Syllabus, eligibility criteria for admission and conduct of examination to ‘Pravara’ and ‘Praveena’ courses, and to advice the Commissioner for Endowment, in accordance with the Rules extracted supra. The advice of the Salaha Samithi need not necessarily be acted upon by the Commissioner, cannot be disputed. Above reading of the Rules indicates that the functions of the Salaha Samiti are more recommendatory, while it is for the State Government to take the decisions. 17. It is no doubt true that the restrictions for nomination of the members of the Salaha Samithi, as provided in Rule 4 of the Rules 2008, are in the nature of qualifications and in the absence of a challenge to the nominations of Respondents 3 to 14 as members not falling within the said restrictions, their nominations, under the Rules cannot be characterised as not intelligible, illegal or arbitrary. Not surprisingly, the petitioners have described the 3rd respondent as a Vidwan of Sri. Koladamatha Samstan; the 4th respondent, Principal of the Government Maharaja Sanskrit College, Mysore; the 5th Respondent Joint Director (Sanskrit Department) of Public Education; the 6th Respondent a Lecturer in Adichunchungiri Sanskrit Agama Maha Vidyalaya; the 7th Respondent Pradhana Archak of Gavi Gangadhara Swamy Temple; the 8th respondent a Vidwan of Sri. Anjaneya Swamy Temple; the Respondents 9 to 14 as Vidwans. In that view of the matter it cannot be gain said that the respondents are any less deserving or meritorious than the petitioners, disentitled to be on the Salaha Samti, since admittedly the petitioners have not passed the course in either ‘Pravara’ or ‘Praveena’. 18. Even otherwise since the “Salaha Samithi”, is required by Rule 7(3) to advice the Commissioner for Religious Endowment in the State as and when circumstances warrant, which advise need not necessarily be acted upon by the Commissioner, the allegation that the Constitution of the Samithi is “baseless, unwarranted and unnecessary”, is without justification and stands repelled. 19. The allegation that the Samithi is constituted by the State to interfere with the powers and functions of conducting the courses in ‘pravara & Praveena” and scuttle the working of the Pareeksha Samithi is devoid of merits, since the Pareeksha Samiti functions under the direct control of the Salaha Samiti as provided under Rule 15 of the Rules 2008. 19. The allegation that the Samithi is constituted by the State to interfere with the powers and functions of conducting the courses in ‘pravara & Praveena” and scuttle the working of the Pareeksha Samithi is devoid of merits, since the Pareeksha Samiti functions under the direct control of the Salaha Samiti as provided under Rule 15 of the Rules 2008. Moreover, the Pareeksha Samiti is not aggrieved by the Constitution of Salaha Samiti and the Petitioners not being members of the said Samiti cannot be heard to say that they have a grievance. The apprehension of the petitioners is uncalled for and unjustified. No other grounds are urged. Petition being without merit is accordingly, rejected.