[Datta Peetha] Permitting only Muslim priest to perform rituals violates religious rights of Hindus and Muslims: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday held that permitting only a Muslim Priest to perform the rituals at the Datta Peeta is violative of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. [Datta Peeta Devasthana Samvardhana Samithi vs State Of Karnataka].Datta Peetha or Baba Budan Giri is a holy cave shrine in Chikmaguluru which is revered by both Hindu as well as the Muslim communities."The impugned order infringes the right of both communities guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution by preventing Hindus from performing pooja as per their faith and compelling the Mujawar to offer pooja contrary to his faith," Justice PS Dinesh Kumar held..The Court was hearing a challenge to a State Government order issued on March 19, 2018 which allowed only a Mujawar to enter the sanctum of the Sri Guru Dattathreya Swamy Peetha and perform rituals for both communities. .In 1985, the High Court while hearing a plea to hand over the Detta Peeta to the petitioners, had directed the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments in Karnataka to enquire about the practice being followed or prevailing prior to June, 1975 in respect of management of the affairs of "Sri Guru Dattatreya Swamy Peetha". Later, in 2007, the Court had quashed the order passed by the Endowment Commissioner. This order was appealed against by the State government but the same was dismissed by a Division Bench in 2008. .That order was challenged by an organization by name 'Citizens for Justice and Peace' before the Supreme Court, which had passed an interim order, directing the Endowment Commissioner to submit his report. Further, the Supreme Court had also directed to maintain status-quo as per the earlier report of the Endowment Commissioner dated February 25,1989.In his report, the Endowment Commissioner suggested that a Hindu Archak be appointed by the Management Committee for performing daily pooja. .The State government submitted that in view of the sensitive nature of the issues involved in the case, it was required to be considered by the State cabinet and a decision would be taken thereafter. The State government then proceeded to appoint a High-level Committee headed by a former judge of the High Court to consider the recommendation made by the Endowment Commissioner. .The High-Level Committee submitted its report in 2017 with a recommendation to continue the nature and character of religious practices, which were prevailing as on August 15, 1947. Subsequently, the State Government issued an order in 2018 which permitted only a Mujawar appointed by Shah Khadri to enter the sanctum of the Datta Peetha. This came to be challenged before the High Court..Senior Advocate Ashok Haranhalli appearing for the petitioner, contended that the appointment of the High Level Committee is contrary to the stand taken by the State government before the Supreme Court and the government order was passed without hearing the petitioner which was also contrary to the directions of the apex court. .Advocate General Pabhuling K Navadgi in response, contended that the State Government had very carefully handled this matter by appointing a High Level Committee to examine the report of the Endowment Commissioner. .The Court after considering the rival arguments said that the 2018 government order has infringed the rights of Muslims as well as Hindus. This was because the Hindus have been deprived of their right to do pooja while Mujawar is being forced to do pooja and light lamps against his faith."By the impugned order, firstly, the State have infringed upon the right of Hindu Community to have the pooja and archana done in the manner as per their faith. Secondly, the State government have imposed upon the Mujawar to perform 'paduka pooja' and to light 'nanda deepa' contrary to his faith. Both these acts amount to flagrant violation of rights of both communities guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution of India," the judgment said..The Court, therefore, quashed the 2018 government order and remitted the matter to the State government to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law without reference to the report of the High Level Committee..[Read Judgment]