Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board – A classic case of Government mismanagement of Temples

Ankur Sharma is an advocate practising at the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. He is also the chairman of Ikkjutt Jammu, an organization which aims to fight against the second-class treatment rendered to the people of Jammu viz Hindus, Jain, Sikhs, Buddhists and other minorities of Jammu by the state establishment of Jammu and Kashmir. Recently, Ankur Sharma represented the Baridars, who are the traditional stakeholders of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Ji Shrine, challenging the state control over the temple. The temple was recently in news for hosting Iftaar party to the Muslims who were quarantined at the guest houses and other properties owned by the temple. We reached out to Ankur Sharma in order to understand the background of this case and the problems with state control of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Ji Shrine.

1. One of the contentions made in the petition is that Baridars are the ones who discovered and established Shri Mata Vaishno Devi shrine. Do you feel that there is a need to prove Baridars as the denominational right holders of the temple?

This is a Constitutional Requirement under Article 26 of the Constitution. Rights under Article 26 are Denominational Rights. These are available only to a Religious Denomination or a section there-of. Unless it is proved that Baridars constitute a Religious Denomination (Sampradaya), and they have established Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Ji Shrine and owned its properties, claim to its Management, Administration and Governance cannot be laid. The Supreme Court in the famous Nataraja Temple Case held that since Dikshitars constitute a Religious Denomination, they are entitled to participate in the administration of the temple because on the ground.

2. Was there any specific instance/incident that made you aware of the mismanagement going on in the temple? Was it the Iftaar party thrown by the board or were there such instances in the past as well?

The list constituting instances of mismanagement and corruption by the Government/Board is unending. Some of them are cited as follows. A) Shrine Board funds were squandered for throwing Iftaar and Sehri parties in favour of Muslims, a fact which was accepted by the CEO of the Board on camera; B) The Board has employed several Non-Hindus at various posts in its administrative; C) The construction of a new pathway from Katra to Holy Cave by the Shrine Board despite strong resistance from the Hindu Community, is aimed at destroying the historical significance of the religious landmarks that exist across the traditional route namely Charan Paduka, Ardha Kunwari; D) The Narayana Super-speciality Hospital owned by the Board employs several Muslim Doctors and other staff. Local Hindu Doctors are discouraged and fired every now and then in-order to accommodate Muslims from Kashmir; E) There is rampant corruption, commercialization and numerous instances of inefficiencies in the day-to-day administration of the Shrine Board. The endowed properties are not properly protected and there is repeated non-realization of the due income therefrom; F) There have been several instances of theft (Jewels and Shrine Funds); G) The Board has caused an irreparable and irreplaceable loss of heritage and antiques in the name of renovation and “development”.

3. Can you elaborate on the contention that, “the State in brazen violation of Article 14 has exercised its authority only against Hindu Temples.” as specified in the petition?

The State under Article 25 of the Constitution can temporarily take over the management and control of any Religious Institution including that of Mosques and Churches for correcting evils of mismanagement and corruption. But the State of India has exercised these powers post-independence exclusively in relation to the Hindu community only. Hindu temples in almost all states of India especially Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand are under the thumb of the state, unlike Muslim or Christian Religious Institutions. When evidently the State has the power to interfere with the religious institutions of all communities equally but chooses to do so much more with one particular community and also benefits financially from such interference in the name of ensuring “proper management”, it is a textbook instance of discriminatory treatment and arbitrary use of power. Hence it is violative of the equality code enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. Another contention is that the bye laws (Medical reimbursement bye laws, employee bye laws) and the J&K Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University Act legislated subsequently to the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Act should be declared null and void. How have the funds been mismanaged through these bye laws and acts?

Many non-Hindus have been employed by the Board in administrative and other capacities in the Board, Hospital, University and in other properties belonging to the shrine. The service conditions of all these employees are governed by bye-laws legislated in this regard namely Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (Leave) Bye Laws, 1997; Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (Medical Reimbursement) Bye Laws, 1997; Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (Medical Reimbursement) Rules, 2007; Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Employees (Recruitment and Other Conditions of Service) Bye-Laws 1996 and The Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University Act, 1999. These service laws enable authorities to employ Muslims, Christians etc in the Shrine Board and other institutions. Through this legislative framework, Hindu Shrine Funds are siphoned-off to Non-Hindus in the name of salary, medical reimbursement and other service benefits. This is against the Constitutional mandate and constitutes mismanagement/dishonesty.

5. You had earlier stated that you filed an RTI application seeking the list of properties and audit reports of the temple to which you are yet to receive any reply. Can you share with us the contents of the application?

In the application filed under the RTI Act, we have sought a) Copies of the Shrine Fund Audit Reports for the last 10 years; b) Details of the amount spent on Iftar parties; c) Details on Non-Hindu Employees; d) Details of Shrine properties on the date of its take over and now; e) Details of the Shrine Fund donated to various organisations in the last 10 years.

6. In the 10-member committee appointed by the Governor, is there any clause in the Board Act that mandates all the members to be practising Hindus?

Section 5 of the J&K Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Act, 1988 provides for the composition of the Board members. Section 5(b)(iii) provides that out of 10 “Three persons, out of persons who have distinguished themselves in administration, legal affairs or financial matters” provides ample scope to the Government to include even non-Hindus. About other members, the qualification provided under section 5 is that these members should have distinguished themselves in the service of Hindu religion or culture. The inclusion of word culture once again provides ample scope to the Government to include even Muslims in the Board. There are many Muslims/Christians who have invested in Hindu Culture but do not subscribe to Hinduism.

7. Are there non-Hindus working in the administrative posts as well?

There are several non-Hindus including Muslims working in Shrine Board and institutions/properties of the Shrine. Yes, there are Non-Hindus working even in administrative capacities. Shrine Board is a closed organization for all practical purposes. There is no transparency and no accountability towards the Hindu community. Though certain appointment orders of non-Hindu employees are annexed with the petition, their exact number may be known only when the Shrine Board files an affidavit in this regard before the J&K High Court.

8. There are allegations that the board has undertaken some development work that would destroy the historical and religious significance of the Shrine and it’s surroundings. Can you share with us the details of the issue?

Lately, despite strong resistance from the entire Hindu Community, Shrine Board spent crores of rupees to construct a new path-way from Katra to Holy cave excising out religious landmarks that exist across the traditional route namely Charan Paduka, Ardha Kunwari; Hathi Matha etc. It has also caused an ecological imbalance. The unscientific construction activity around the Holy Cave also poses it a grave threat.

9. Reportedly several idols, icons and ancient jewellery belonging to the shrine have gone missing. Do you think this is in tandem with the section 3(b) of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Act?

All instances of theft related to idols, donations, jewels etc are always brushed under the carpet. Despite public knowledge and media reporting, no FIRs were registered. This is illegal and is against all laws including J&K Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Act.

10. There is also an accusation that the properties of the shrine are neither protected nor their dues realised regularly. Have there been many instances like this?

The endowed properties are not properly protected and there is repeated non-realization of the due income. The Board has caused an irreparable and irreplaceable loss of heritage and antiques in the name of renovation and “development”. Our Sources have shared sufficient evidence with us but details based upon official records will be shared as soon as the replies under the RTI Act are received.

11. Tell us about the denominational rights of Baridars in the time of British and the regimes before them

The Holy Shrine of Vaishno Devi Ji was discovered and established by Baridars under the Spiritual guidance of Pandit Shridhar Ji in the 10th Century A.D. The revenue record of the 10th century AD as well as of the post-independent India coupled with Judicial Dictums recognize the denominational rights of Baridars. J&K was a princely state, not under the direct control of Britishers, and hence Britishers were never in the picture as far as management of the temple is concerned. The Dogra Empire under Maharaja Gulab Singh in 1846 formed a trust called as Dharmartha Trust for the management of all temples within the Dogra Empire. In 1846 the trust of the Royals introduced certain regulations in the management of the shrine simultaneously recognizing the inheritable rights of the Baridars on the Shrine. Baridars would pay the rent prescribed by the Maharaja to Dharmarth every year before they would be permitted to carry away his share of the offerings. Certain obligations were imposed on the Baridars from the year 1907 Bikrami Samvat onwards by the Monarch. Those obligations included: A) A duty to deposit a fixed annual sum with the Dharmarth Trust to be spent on arrangements for lodging and boarding of Sadhus visiting the Shrine; B) To provide 3 Permanent servants, in addition to 6 Peons during the Mela/Yatra Season; C) To pay for the Prasad and to arrange its transport from Katra to Vaishno Devi Temple; D) To arrange for the cattle owned by the Dharmarth Trust being taken away from one place to another; E) To arrange for the carriages of the luggage of Government servant visiting the Shrine; F) To keep the temple compound and the compound appurtenant thereto in a state of cleanliness; G) To carry inside the temple the material required for worship by the priest; H) To look after the visitors to the shrine who fall ill and make arrangements for the restoration of their health. Monarch exercised only regulatory authority and Baridars completely managed, administered and governed the Shrine and its endowments. The Indian State however in 1986 took complete control of the management of the Shrine and its properties ousting Baridars from the administration and participation of all kinds.

12. When it comes to the Vaishno Devi temple, certain powers are bestowed on the Board regarding ‘alienation of property’. Does the govt of J&K have similar or any say regarding the alienation of properties vested in other religious boards? Or is it restricted to Hindus?

Section 17 of the Shrine Board Act vests in the Board unbridled and unfettered powers of alienating moveable as well as immovable property of the Shrine. Section 17 of the act is in stark contrast to Section 43 of the J&K Wakaf’s Act, 2001 which provides for a blanket prohibition on “permanent alienation of Wakaf Property”. Under section 17 of the impugned Act, while alienating moveable property, the previous sanction of the Board should suffice. In the case where the immovable property is being alienated, a resolution passed by the Board will pave the way. It is painful that there are no metrics spelt out whatsoever on the basis of which either the sanction is provided or a resolution is passed. This is all whimsical, capricious, arbitrary and unreasonable. Provisions of alienating Shrine properties are selectively legislated against Hindu Shrines.