The accounts of the almighty to be brought before the public
Dr. Mrs. ANURADHA VERMA
RTI Consultant, IIM, Indore
BACKGROUND
1. Vide Circular No.50838/2008 K-4, dated 27-3-2012, the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious, and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department, Chennai informed that in respect of temples in which hereditary trustees were administering the temple as well as where there were scheme decrees, the trustees of the concerned temple were appointed as Public Information Officers. This became necessary because of the delay in getting information from those temples for the sake of an information seeker and that a recommendation was also made by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission.
A writ petition was filed under the article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the above circular and quash the same.
ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE PETITIONER
2. The contentions made by the petitioner were as follows :
(i) As a temple is not an administrative unit or an office of the HR&CE department, it cannot be brought under the definition of section 2(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
(ii) A temple cannot be brought under the purview of the RTI Act and, therefore, nominating the hereditary trustee as a Public Information Officer (PIO) under the purview of the Act is unwarranted.
(iii) Reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Kerala High Court in W.P.(C)No.30470 of 2008, dated 11.3.2011 in Bhanunni v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department reported in 2011 (2) KLT 312.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE MADRAS HIGH COURT
3. Earlier, an applicant, Mr. J. Rajendren sought for certain information from the Joint Commissioner of the HR&CE Board, Chennai under the RTI Act which, in turn, asked the Trustee to furnish the information. When the said direction was given, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, being W.P.No.7767 of 2009. The said writ petition was dismissed. Against the same, the petitioner had preferred a writ appeal, being W.A.No.1730 of 2009 which was heard by a Division Bench of the Court. By an order dated 3-12-2009, the Division Bench had disposed of the writ appeal observing as follows :
"2....All that is happened is that the second respondent sought some information from the first respondent about the appellant and the land owned by the concerned temple. The appellant has submitted that information to the first respondent. Thereafter, this writ petition has been filed by the appellant submitting that the appellant is not bound to give any such information. The first respondent may furnish a reply to the second respondent based on the information submitted by the appellant. There is no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge....."
VIEW OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT
4. Disagreeing with the contention of the petitioner, the High Court held that the temple is not a private institution for the purpose of the RTI Act and clarified as follows:
1. The temple is a public institution. Merely because it is administered by an hereditary trustee, the public character of a temple will not disappear.
2. Temples are clearly brought under the HR&CE Act and further, public collections are made for conducting various activities of the temple including rituals.
3. The State Government also spends huge amounts every year for administering the department to manage the temples and also releases various grants for renovation of the temples, including special grants for conducting Kumbaghishekams periodically.
4. When an information is sought for and if the activities of the temple will be kept secret, then it may also result in gradual deterioration of the temple administration. It cannot be contended that the temple activities are private activities and are not covered by the provisions of the RTI Act.
5. Once it is held that the temple is covered by the provisions of the RTI Act, certainly the unit will have to have a Public Information Officer (PIO). In respect of hereditary temple as well as a unit run by scheme decrees, the information is solely available only with the trustees or the trust board. It is too much for the executive officer to seek an information from those trustees and thereafter, pass on the information to an information seeker. Having dual authority will only create bottlenecks in the free flow of the information.
The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court.
5. ANALYSIS OF THE RULING
1. This order has put the temples under the category of the "public authority" under the RTI Act, 2005. As per section 2(h) of the RTI Act, "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted:
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by the Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by the State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or an order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any -
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed,
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
2. The High Court has held that if the temple is substantially financed by the State either in the form of administrative expenses or in the form of non-recurring expenditure, it would be an institution covered by the provisions of the RTI Act. As per the provisions of the RTI Act, even a private body substantially funded by the State is covered by the RTI Act.
3. A hereditary priest may not a government servant who is given a salary by the government, but even he can be appointed as a Public Information Officer (PIO) to avoid bottlenecks in the free flow of the information.
4. The judgment is in respect of one temple but can be extrapolated to all temples in the country. Most temples are run as a parts of public trust, involving huge funds at their disposal. Many of them have got land at concessional rate and almost all of them avail income-tax benefits, apart from a host of other bursaries. The opaque working of these temples leaves much to be desired. With this order in hand, a citizen can question the working of these temples.
5. India is a secular democracy and the constitution provides equal protection to all religions. Hence, an enlightened citizen would extend the scope of the judgment to include all places of worship belonging to all religions. It is noteworthy that charges of misuse of funds/donations have been made against all the different religious bodies from time-to-time.
(Prem Anand, Hereditary Trustee, Sri Vengeeswarar Alagarperumal and Nagathamman Koil Devasthanam, Vadapalani v. The Commissioner, H.R.&C.E., Chennai in W.P.No.14692 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012. [Order dated: 11-6-2012 by Justice K. Chandru of the Madras High Court])
Dr. Mrs. ANURADHA VERMA
RTI Consultant, IIM, Indore
BACKGROUND
1. Vide Circular No.50838/2008 K-4, dated 27-3-2012, the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious, and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department, Chennai informed that in respect of temples in which hereditary trustees were administering the temple as well as where there were scheme decrees, the trustees of the concerned temple were appointed as Public Information Officers. This became necessary because of the delay in getting information from those temples for the sake of an information seeker and that a recommendation was also made by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission.
A writ petition was filed under the article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the above circular and quash the same.
ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE PETITIONER
2. The contentions made by the petitioner were as follows :
(i) As a temple is not an administrative unit or an office of the HR&CE department, it cannot be brought under the definition of section 2(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
(ii) A temple cannot be brought under the purview of the RTI Act and, therefore, nominating the hereditary trustee as a Public Information Officer (PIO) under the purview of the Act is unwarranted.
(iii) Reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Kerala High Court in W.P.(C)No.30470 of 2008, dated 11.3.2011 in Bhanunni v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department reported in 2011 (2) KLT 312.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE MADRAS HIGH COURT
3. Earlier, an applicant, Mr. J. Rajendren sought for certain information from the Joint Commissioner of the HR&CE Board, Chennai under the RTI Act which, in turn, asked the Trustee to furnish the information. When the said direction was given, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, being W.P.No.7767 of 2009. The said writ petition was dismissed. Against the same, the petitioner had preferred a writ appeal, being W.A.No.1730 of 2009 which was heard by a Division Bench of the Court. By an order dated 3-12-2009, the Division Bench had disposed of the writ appeal observing as follows :
"2....All that is happened is that the second respondent sought some information from the first respondent about the appellant and the land owned by the concerned temple. The appellant has submitted that information to the first respondent. Thereafter, this writ petition has been filed by the appellant submitting that the appellant is not bound to give any such information. The first respondent may furnish a reply to the second respondent based on the information submitted by the appellant. There is no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge....."
VIEW OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT
4. Disagreeing with the contention of the petitioner, the High Court held that the temple is not a private institution for the purpose of the RTI Act and clarified as follows:
1. The temple is a public institution. Merely because it is administered by an hereditary trustee, the public character of a temple will not disappear.
2. Temples are clearly brought under the HR&CE Act and further, public collections are made for conducting various activities of the temple including rituals.
3. The State Government also spends huge amounts every year for administering the department to manage the temples and also releases various grants for renovation of the temples, including special grants for conducting Kumbaghishekams periodically.
4. When an information is sought for and if the activities of the temple will be kept secret, then it may also result in gradual deterioration of the temple administration. It cannot be contended that the temple activities are private activities and are not covered by the provisions of the RTI Act.
5. Once it is held that the temple is covered by the provisions of the RTI Act, certainly the unit will have to have a Public Information Officer (PIO). In respect of hereditary temple as well as a unit run by scheme decrees, the information is solely available only with the trustees or the trust board. It is too much for the executive officer to seek an information from those trustees and thereafter, pass on the information to an information seeker. Having dual authority will only create bottlenecks in the free flow of the information.
The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court.
5. ANALYSIS OF THE RULING
1. This order has put the temples under the category of the "public authority" under the RTI Act, 2005. As per section 2(h) of the RTI Act, "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted:
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by the Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by the State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or an order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any -
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed,
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
2. The High Court has held that if the temple is substantially financed by the State either in the form of administrative expenses or in the form of non-recurring expenditure, it would be an institution covered by the provisions of the RTI Act. As per the provisions of the RTI Act, even a private body substantially funded by the State is covered by the RTI Act.
3. A hereditary priest may not a government servant who is given a salary by the government, but even he can be appointed as a Public Information Officer (PIO) to avoid bottlenecks in the free flow of the information.
4. The judgment is in respect of one temple but can be extrapolated to all temples in the country. Most temples are run as a parts of public trust, involving huge funds at their disposal. Many of them have got land at concessional rate and almost all of them avail income-tax benefits, apart from a host of other bursaries. The opaque working of these temples leaves much to be desired. With this order in hand, a citizen can question the working of these temples.
5. India is a secular democracy and the constitution provides equal protection to all religions. Hence, an enlightened citizen would extend the scope of the judgment to include all places of worship belonging to all religions. It is noteworthy that charges of misuse of funds/donations have been made against all the different religious bodies from time-to-time.
(Prem Anand, Hereditary Trustee, Sri Vengeeswarar Alagarperumal and Nagathamman Koil Devasthanam, Vadapalani v. The Commissioner, H.R.&C.E., Chennai in W.P.No.14692 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012. [Order dated: 11-6-2012 by Justice K. Chandru of the Madras High Court])
No comments:
Post a Comment