The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the State’s decision to appoint an ‘Executive Officer’ to control and manage the business of the Ahobilam Temple in Kurnool violates Article 26(d) of the Constitution and interferes with the Mathadipathis’ right of administration.

The division bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice DVSS Somayajulu made it absolutely clear that the Temple is a component of the Ahobilam Math in Tamil Nadu.

“Ahobilam Temple is an intrinsic and inseparable element of Ahobilam Math, which was founded to promote Hinduism and to provide spiritual services for the spread of Sri Vaishnavism. The trustees of the Ahobilam Devasthanam are the succeeding Jeeyars, and because the Government cannot appoint an Executive Officer for the Ahobilam Math, it has no power to appoint an Executive Officer for the Ahobilam Temple by considering it separately from the Math. Appointing an Executive Officer for the Temple, which is part of the Math, is a violation of Article 26(d) of the Indian Constitution, as it interferes with Jeeyars’/Mathadipathis’ power of administration.”

It dismissed the State’s claim that the Temple and the Math are separate entities. The court ruled that just because the Temple is in the current state of Andhra Pradesh and the Math is in the current state of Tamil Nadu, the former does not cease to be a place of religious worship pertaining to the main Math. In fact, both the Math and the Temple were once located in the state of Madras. “This truth must not be overlooked,” Court remarked.

It was also discovered that historical records, literature, and archaeological facts demonstrate that the Mathadipathis founded and administered the temple and math since ancient times. Furthermore, no information was presented to demonstrate that the temple’s activities, traditions, practices, and sampradaya differ from those of the Math.

The bench stated that the State does not have general supervision and control of Math, and that its business could only be interfered with rarely and on compelling circumstances such as mismanagement. However, in this situation, it was discovered that the appointment of an Executive Officer was not supported by any evidence that would justify it.

“The Mathadipathi cannot be reduced to the position of a simple employee, nor can his powers be diminished or removed by the appointment of an Executive Officer who will exercise all functions or control,” the Court stated.

It was finally observed that, beginning with the Endowments Act of 1927 and continuing through the Acts of 1951, 1959, and 1966 until the Act of 1987, the Temple was managed by a Mathadipathis, whose nomination did not reside in nor was exercised by the Government. However, in this situation, it was discovered that the appointment of an Executive Officer was not supported by any evidence that would justify it.

“The Mathadipathi cannot be reduced to the position of a simple employee, nor can his powers be diminished or removed by the appointment of an Executive Officer who will exercise all functions or control,” the Court stated.

It was finally observed that, beginning with the Endowments Act of 1927 and continuing through the Acts of 1951, 1959, and 1966 until the Act of 1987, the Temple was managed by a Mathadipathis, whose nomination did not reside in nor was exercised by the Government.

According to the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, the Petitioners, devotees, alleged that the State does not have the right to designate the Executive Officer for the Math or Temple. It was claimed that the administration acknowledged in 2014 that there is no practice for appointing non-hereditary trustees to the temple.

On behalf of the government, Advocate General S Sriram claimed that Ahobilam Math and the Temple are distinct entities. He contended that a Temple is a public site of religious worship, as opposed to a Math, which caters to a certain group or class of persons who are involved in spiritual rituals, etc. He contended that the Temple in this case provides people with unlimited access and the restrictions which are placed under the Act with regard to Math are not applicable to the temple.

Finally, the court ruled that:

“State of Andhra Pradesh has no authority, jurisdiction or entitlement under law to appoint an Executive Officer of Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam (Ahobilam Math Temple).”