Murugha Mutt: State moves Karnataka High Court against single-judge order quashing appointment of administrator

The Karnataka government has moved the Karnataka High Court against an order passed by a single-judge quashing the appointment of administrator to Murugha Mutt [State of Karnataka v Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Vidhya Peeta]. .A Bench comprising Chief Justice PB Varale and Justice MGS Kamal on Monday issued notice to the respondents and posted the case for further consideration on July 18. "There is some urgency in the matters and it requires some time for hearing the counsel representing the respective parties namely, the appellants, original petitioners and the State Government.. we deem it appropriate to issue notice on the interlocutory applications as well as on the appeals to the respondents," the Court said..The Court took into account the order under challenge which allowed the administrator to continue for six weeks with no power to take any major decisions and only to manage the day to day affairs.Considering that this period was coming to an end, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Chitradurga District was directed to take charge as the administrator effective from July 4. "The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge shall manage the affairs relating to day to day activities of Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Vidhya Peetha and Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Bruhan Math and not to take any policy decision," the order said. .The petition challenging the May 22 order said that the order of the single-judge was erroneous, arbitrary, and opposed to law, Therefore, it ought to be set-aside. It stated that the trust and its institutions are valued at more than ₹1,600 crores and these institutions require constant supervision for their efficient functioning..The State backed the need for its intervention by highlighting that the pontiff of the trust, Dr. Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru, is facing criminal prosecution for serious offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and offences punishable under Indian Penal Code. “As such, it was just and necessary for the State Government to appoint an Administrator, not only for looking after the Trust and Society, but also to conduct fair investigation for the alleged offences against the Accused Pointiff who is the sole trustee and president”, the plea said. .[POCSO case] Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru sent to 14-day judicial custody.The petition underscored that the government must step in and ensure the rights of those victims and other residential students studying in the institution. .Further, the State argued that the single-judge committed a serious error in holding that secular functions, religious practices, and rights of the religious sect were interfered with. “It has lost sight of the fact that the act of appointing the Administrator does not in any way impair the rights of the Mutt or its denomination. On the contrary, it seeks to protect and promote that right.”.The State contended that it exercised jurisdiction and power under the concept of Parens Patriae as a protector of all property subject to charitable trusts since trusts are essentially matters of public concern..[Read Order]