High Court Decision on Yallamma Devi Temple
The Karnataka High Court has recently declared Sri Yallamma Devi Temple, located in Belagavi district, a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. This decision came in the case of Mallari Vs Laxman Raju Poojari, as presided over by Justice Geetha KB. The court found that the temple met all the necessary criteria for registration as a public trust, setting aside previous decisions by the Charity Commissioner and the Belagavi District Court that had denied such recognition.
Legal Context and Court’s Observations
The court emphasized that, according to the Act, an ancient temple utilized by the Hindu public as a right qualifies for registration as a public trust. Justice Geetha KB noted, “It is established that Sri Yallamma Devi Temple is an ancient site of public religious worship, dedicated to the Hindu community, and that the community has the right to use it for offerings and worship.” The court referred to Sections 2(17) and 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, which define a ‘Temple’ and a ‘Trust’ respectively, stating that the temple fulfills these definitions.
Case Background and Judicial Journey
The petition for registering the temple as a public trust was initially filed in 1994 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The petitioners argued that the temple’s historical significance and the resolution by devotees to form a managing committee justified its registration as a public trust. Although the Assistant Charity Commissioner accepted this plea in 1997, the Charity Commissioner overturned this decision in 2001, and the District Court supported the reversal in 2005.
The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which remanded it to the High Court, clarifying that the earlier High Court ruling regarding poojari rights did not impact the temple’s status as a public trust.
Final Ruling and Implications
On June 22, the High Court concluded that the temple, being ancient and publicly accessible for worship, should be registered as a public trust. It rejected the argument that the temple was private merely due to hereditary pooja rights held by some families. The court also addressed the role of archaks or poojaris, stating that they should not be excluded from serving as trustees. Justice Geetha KB remarked, “There is no rule that an archak of the temple cannot be a trustee. Appointing them as trustees could aid the temple’s overall development as they are central to its operations.”
The court ordered that the trustees named in the original 1994 inquiry petition, along with representatives from the archak families, be recognized as trustees. Advocate Ramachandra A Mali represented the appellants, while Advocates Shivakumar S Badawadagi and Ravikumar D Gokakakar appeared for the respondents. High Court Government Pleader Abhishek Malipatil represented the State of Karnataka.
