The Bombay High Court recently ruled that Pujaris or priests are eligible to be appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Devasthan (Temple) Trust..In doing so, the High Court set aside a portion of a circular issued by State Charity Commissioner on November 13, 2017 whereby priests were barred from being appointed on the trustee board of temples..A Division Bench of justices Akil Kureshi and SJ Kathawalla passed an order to this effect in a batch of petitions filed by priests from various religious places governed by public trusts across Maharashtra..The priests had challenged a clause in the November 2017 circular, which had stated that Pujaris taking income from the temple cannot be made its trustees. The disputed portion read,.“Beneficiary of Devasthan (temple) cannot become trustees. In this regard, make necessary changes in the scheme of the Trust and appoint eligible persons as Trustees. Decisions related to ensuring increase in income of Temple Trust and facilities to the devotees need to be taken.”.Appearing for the petitioner-priests, advocates NP Dalvi, VS Talkute, Tanaji Mhatugade and Shrishail Sakhare informed the Court that, by virtue of the circular, all beneficiaries of the trust, including the aggrieved Pujaris, were prevented from being appointed or continuing as trustees for the last two years. It was contended that no such embargo existed under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act..On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutors PG Sawant and PN Diwan defended the circular, contending that it was issued for the better management of trusts and in public interest..The Court, in turn, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Trambakeshwar Devasthan Trust & Anr. Vs. President, Purohit Sangh & Ors, wherein the Apex Court had held that service of Purohits (priests) was not in conflict with interest of the Temple Trust and further that they needed to be represented in the Board of Trustees as per the Maharashtra Public Trust Act..Inter alia, the Supreme Court had quoted the following observations in a challenged Bombay High Court judgment with approval,.“…[a] public Trust is ‘for the community, by the community and of the community’ or any other section. If such is the purport of the Trust then diversified representation and involvement of all concerned or the section of the public, who have interest in the Trust and in particular associated with the day to day activities of the temple of the Devasthan [including priests] is inevitable – and the most appropriate step to further and promote the objectives of such a Trust.“.The Supreme Court went on to take note that there was a difference between a ‘person having interest in the trust’ and a ‘person having conflict of interest’. It further also endorsed the High Court’s finding that persons having an interest in the trust were quintessential for being eligible to become a trustee. A person would render himself unfit to be appointed to the Trustee Board, only he was hostile to the affairs of the trust..In view of these observations, the Bombay High Court in the instant case set aside the disputed clause of the circular and held that any action taken with regards to said directives would also be set aside. The petitions were disposed of with the clarification that,.“The rest of the circular remains unchanged. Nothing stated in the order would prevent the Charity Commissioner from issuing further directives or a fresh circular in the interest of better administration of the trust, as may be permissible in accordance with law.”.[Read the order]
The Bombay High Court recently ruled that Pujaris or priests are eligible to be appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Devasthan (Temple) Trust..In doing so, the High Court set aside a portion of a circular issued by State Charity Commissioner on November 13, 2017 whereby priests were barred from being appointed on the trustee board of temples..A Division Bench of justices Akil Kureshi and SJ Kathawalla passed an order to this effect in a batch of petitions filed by priests from various religious places governed by public trusts across Maharashtra..The priests had challenged a clause in the November 2017 circular, which had stated that Pujaris taking income from the temple cannot be made its trustees. The disputed portion read,.“Beneficiary of Devasthan (temple) cannot become trustees. In this regard, make necessary changes in the scheme of the Trust and appoint eligible persons as Trustees. Decisions related to ensuring increase in income of Temple Trust and facilities to the devotees need to be taken.”.Appearing for the petitioner-priests, advocates NP Dalvi, VS Talkute, Tanaji Mhatugade and Shrishail Sakhare informed the Court that, by virtue of the circular, all beneficiaries of the trust, including the aggrieved Pujaris, were prevented from being appointed or continuing as trustees for the last two years. It was contended that no such embargo existed under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act..On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutors PG Sawant and PN Diwan defended the circular, contending that it was issued for the better management of trusts and in public interest..The Court, in turn, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Trambakeshwar Devasthan Trust & Anr. Vs. President, Purohit Sangh & Ors, wherein the Apex Court had held that service of Purohits (priests) was not in conflict with interest of the Temple Trust and further that they needed to be represented in the Board of Trustees as per the Maharashtra Public Trust Act..Inter alia, the Supreme Court had quoted the following observations in a challenged Bombay High Court judgment with approval,.“…[a] public Trust is ‘for the community, by the community and of the community’ or any other section. If such is the purport of the Trust then diversified representation and involvement of all concerned or the section of the public, who have interest in the Trust and in particular associated with the day to day activities of the temple of the Devasthan [including priests] is inevitable – and the most appropriate step to further and promote the objectives of such a Trust.“.The Supreme Court went on to take note that there was a difference between a ‘person having interest in the trust’ and a ‘person having conflict of interest’. It further also endorsed the High Court’s finding that persons having an interest in the trust were quintessential for being eligible to become a trustee. A person would render himself unfit to be appointed to the Trustee Board, only he was hostile to the affairs of the trust..In view of these observations, the Bombay High Court in the instant case set aside the disputed clause of the circular and held that any action taken with regards to said directives would also be set aside. The petitions were disposed of with the clarification that,.“The rest of the circular remains unchanged. Nothing stated in the order would prevent the Charity Commissioner from issuing further directives or a fresh circular in the interest of better administration of the trust, as may be permissible in accordance with law.”.[Read the order]
