Court Rules Mismanagement Allegations Supported by Cogent Material, but Stresses Proper Enquiry Procedure Under Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997
In a significant judgment dated September 18, 2026, the Karnataka High Court (Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha) allowed an appeal filed by the President of Shri Vishnumurthy Temple, Kalenja, against a Single Judge's order that had quashed proceedings initiated under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. The Court upheld the State Commissioner's initiation of proceedings under Section 43 of the Act, which aimed to declare the Temple as a "Declared Institution" subject to Chapter VIII of the Act due to alleged mismanagement.
The dispute arose when devotees lodged complaints about alleged misuse and mismanagement of funds collected at the temple, which reportedly had over Rs. 24 lakhs deposited, including government grants. The Temple's management by a family Trust, formed just 20 days before the allegations, was challenged by other devotees claiming disorganized administration and disputes over property rights. The Commissioner issued a show cause notice under Section 43(1) of the Act after receiving a report from the First Grade Supervisor indicating prima facie mismanagement and differences of opinion between the managing committee and the public.
The Single Judge had earlier set aside the proceedings on the ground that they were initiated without sufficient material and were not bona fide, partly because the Temple had not yet been declared a notified institution under Section 42. However, the Division Bench disagreed, clarifying that the jurisdictional prerequisite for issuing the notice is the existence of "reason to believe" mismanagement, supported by cogent and relevant material. The Court drew on precedents from the Supreme Court interpreting "reason to believe" as requiring relevant material with nexus to the belief, without judicially scrutinizing the adequacy of such material.
The High Court observed that the complaints by devotees, the supervisor's report, non-submission of audited accounts, disputes over management, and difficulties in meeting daily expenses despite ample funds constituted sufficient grounds to form the requisite "reason to believe." Therefore, the preliminary proceedings could not be quashed at the threshold.
However, the Court found procedural infirmities in how the enquiry under Section 43(6) was conducted. While the Commissioner authorised the Deputy Commissioner to conduct the enquiry, the latter improperly delegated this function to the Assistant Commissioner. The Court held that such delegation beyond the Commissioner's initial authorisation is impermissible under the statutory scheme. Consequently, the recommendation based on the Assistant Commissioner's enquiry report was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner himself.
The Court directed that once the fresh enquiry report is submitted, the Commissioner must decide whether to recommend the Temple's declaration as a notified institution. If so, the State Government may issue a notification under Section 42, thereby subjecting the Temple's administration to the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Act for a specified period.
This judgment underscores the importance of balancing prompt administrative action against mismanagement in religious institutions with adherence to statutory procedural safeguards. It also reinforces the principle that "reason to believe" requires relevant material but is not subject to judicial scrutiny of sufficiency at the initial stage.
Bottom Line:
Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 - Proceedings under Section 43 cannot be quashed at threshold where Commissioner had cogent material giving rise to "reason to believe" that temple was being mismanaged - However, enquiry under Section 43(6) must be conducted by officer specifically authorised by Commissioner and such officer cannot further delegate that function.
Statutory provision(s): Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 Sections 42, 43(1), 43(6), 43(7)
