VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has struck down State government’s appointment of an executive officer to Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy temple, which is part of Ahobilam Mutt. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishara and Justice DVSS Somayajulu, which had reserved the verdict on July 11, recently, in its 63 page judgement observed that appointment of EO to Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy temple in 2020 was illegal and anti-Constitutional.
The HC directed that no outsiders should intervene in the mutt activities, including traditional transactions and restored the powers of bank accounts management to jeeyar of the mutt. In 2020, the endowments department issued proceedings appointing EO to Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy temple.
Objecting to it, KB Sethuraman of Ahobilam filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and at the same time GPA (General Power of Attorney) Holder Sampath Sadagopan on behalf of Ahobillam Mutt filed a petition challenging the government proceedings and seeking to know what right did endowment commissioner had to appoint an EO for a temple managed by the mutt for several generations.
In the verdict, the HC said that appointing an EO and empowering him with all powers over the temple is nothing less than snatching away powers of the pontiff of Ahobilam Mutt. By appointing an EO, the government has reduced the pontiff to the level of an employee, the HC observed.
Further, it said that the government does not have rights under any Act to appoint an EO to the temple. Admitting that there has been a delay in filing a petition challenging the proceedings, the HC said when the appointment itself was illegal, then it could be challenged any time. Delay in filing a petition is not a ground to support the government’s proceedings, it observed.
Pointing out historical and inscriptional evidence besides literary evidence, the Court said they clearly explain that the temple was an integral part of Ahobilam Mutt. It further dismissed the contention of the government that as the temple is located in Andhra Pradesh, though having its headquarters in Tamil Nadu, it falls under the purview of the Endowment Act. It reminded the government that previously both the temple and mutt headquarters were located in the composite state of Madras.
The HC also said that the government failed to produce evidence to support its arguments that temple management was not done effectively. Further, the Court reminded the government that in the past the managers under the pontiff were made EOs, to which the mutt had objected. Stating that under no circumstance, the government was empowered to appoint executive officers to Ahobilam temple, it struck off the proceedings, deeming them illegal.