Syed Akmal Razvi
SOME individuals, driven by a desire for publicity, often align themselves with causes or actions that attract attention, even if it means associating with malevolent forces. This desire for validation and recognition can lead them to compromise their values and morals, ultimately contributing to harm and negativity. By prioritising their public image over ethical considerations, they inadvertently support or enable destructive behaviours, further exacerbating societal problems. This phenomenon highlights the importance of introspection and genuine commitment to positive values, rather than superficial posturing.
Ashwini Upadhyay, a lawyer known for filing numerous Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in the Supreme Court, also falls in the category of those who, by whatever means possible, seek publicity. He has frequently been taking up causes aligned with the agenda of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its parent body, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
Upadhyay’s PILs have sought to ban religious conversions, make Hindi and the National Anthem compulsory in schools, and establish a uniform age of marriage for men and women. However, the Supreme Court dismissed several of his petitions, with judges terming them frivolous.
In April 2022, the Supreme Court declined to hear his challenge against the constitutionality of the Waqf Act, 1995. Later, in December 2022, while reviewing his PIL alleging “mass conversions,” the court took strong exception to defamatory statements made against minority religions. Another of his PILs advocating the renaming of historical places and cities was also dismissed.
Upadhyay has strongly opposed the Waqf Act, claiming it is unconstitutional and discriminatory. In a video, he argues that the Constitution does not mention the term “Waqf,” yet Waqf Boards exist. However, he conveniently overlooks the fact that temple trusts are also not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and Article 26 protects religious institutions across all faiths.
Upadhyay’s claims on temple governance are also incorrect. He contends that Hindu temples are governed by multiple laws while Waqf properties remain under singular control. He further claims that state governments seize offerings made at Hindu temples while leaving mosques and churches untouched. He cites examples such as the Siddhi Vinayak Mandir in Mumbai, the Pushkar Mandir in Rajasthan, the Vaishno Devi Mandir in Kashmir, and the Tirupati temple.
The Siddhi Vinayak Temple in Mumbai, originally known as “Shree Ganpati Temple at Prabhadevi Road, Dadar, Bombay,” operates under the Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ganpati Temple Trust of Prabhadevi, registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. In 1980, the Government of Maharashtra enacted the “Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ganpati Temple Trust (Prabhadevi) Act,” which came into force on October 11, 1980. The government justified this enactment by citing the trust’s large properties and the inability to fully utilise its growing income due to continuous litigation. The new law aimed to reconstitute the trust and establish a management committee under government supervision to enhance facilities for devotees and undertake welfare activities using surplus funds.
Contrary to allegations that the government seizes all offerings, the Act provides for a Committee of Management under Section 5. This committee is tasked with preparing annual budgets, auditing accounts, and ensuring proper management and administration of the trust’s properties and affairs. Section 17 establishes the “Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ganpati Temple Trust Fund,” operated by authorised members or officers of the committee. Section 18 mandates that the fund be used for temple maintenance, rituals, ceremonies, festivals, and providing amenities for devotees. These provisions clearly demonstrate that offerings are utilised for the benefit of pilgrims, debunking claims of government appropriation.
The Haji Ali Dargah, notified as a Waqf by the Maharashtra Waqf Board, challenged this designation, arguing that it was registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The matter reached the Supreme Court and was remitted back to the Waqf Board, leaving the issue unresolved. Regardless, the Bombay Public Trust Act ensures high accountability for all trusts under the supervision of the Charity Commissioner. Trustees are required to maintain regular accounts, which must be audited annually. Auditors must report irregularities, illegal expenditures, or misconduct, ensuring transparency and proper administration.
The Waqf Act, 1995, does not grant arbitrary powers to Waqf Boards. Each state has its own Waqf Board, contrary to claims of a single national board. Waqf properties are owned by individual Waqfs and managed by Mutawallis or committees. Section 44 of the Act requires Mutawallis to prepare annual budgets, allocate funds for the Waqf’s objectives, and maintain properties. The board can direct changes to the budget if the expenditures contradict the Waqf’s objectives or legal provisions. These regulations refute assertions of special privileges for Waqf properties and their income.
The Durgah Khawaja Saheb Act, 1955, governs the administration of the Durgah and its endowment in Ajmer. Section 4 establishes the Durgah Committee, consisting of 5 to 9 Hanafi Muslims appointed by the Central Government. The committee manages the Durgah’s properties, ensures proper maintenance, and allocates funds according to donors’ wishes. Annual audits and published reports in the Official Gazette ensure transparency.
The Vaishno Devi Temple was initially managed by the Dharmarth Trust, founded in 1846 by Maharaja Gulab Singh. In 1987, the Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988, transferred the temple’s administration to a board comprising the Lieutenant Governor and up to ten Hindu members. Section 18 mandates the board to work for pilgrims’ welfare, shrine maintenance, and fund protection.
The Harathbal Shrine, designated as a Waqf, is accountable under the Waqf Act.
The Tirupati Temple operates under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Its management is overseen by the Commissioner and the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. Section 111 specifies that funds must be used for temple maintenance, rituals, and promoting Hindu culture and education. Regular audits ensure accountability.
The BJP’s stance on temple control has been inconsistent. In Uttarakhand, the BJP enacted the Char Dham Devasthanam Management Act, 2019, aimed to bring the Char Dham of Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri and Yamunotri and 49 other temples under a shrine board led by the chief minister and the religious affairs minister. However, protests from priests led to the Act’s withdrawal.
The Supreme Court in the case of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman, Mhow Versus the Sub-Divisional Officer/The Registrar of Public Trusts and Another, has held in para 27 “Public control of charities (whether social or religious) has been recognised in our country for over a century. In the context of religious endowments, such public control is essential, for the simple reason that in its absence, there is likelihood of diversion of monies and properties accumulated through public donation and gifts. The role of the designated state official (commissioner, or registrar, etc.) is to ensure that accounts are properly maintained; monies are expended in accordance with the aims and objects of the endowments; the proper rituals are conducted, etc. Such regulation does not mean that the state is allowed to appropriate monies which rightly belong to the endowment.
That is the correct position that the regulations are uniformly applied to all religious endowments irrespective of religion to ensure transparency and to ensure that funds are spent as per the objectives of the endowment. No government can appropriate the funds for its own use.
Misleading assertions by individuals like Ashwini Upadhyay undermine communal harmony. Refraining from these incorrect assertions is essential for fostering fraternity and unity.
————-
Syed Akmal Razvi is a lawyer practising in the Karnataka High Court. The views expressed here are the author’s own, and Clarion India does not necessarily subscribe to them. He can be contacted atakmalrazvi@yahoo.com
