How Tamil Nadu Government Might Take Over Kanchi Mutt

CHENNAI, INDIA, January 14, 2005: As speculation mounts that chief minister Jayalalithaa could be mulling an ordinance to take control of the Kanchi mutt (monastery), a debate has started on whether such a takeover is legally possible. Experts say the Tamil Nadu law governing administration of temples and religious institutions, including mutts, has not given such bodies unlimited freedom to function. A commissioner has been empowered to file a suit to remove institution heads if the need arises. According to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, all such bodies "shall be subject to the superintendence and general control of the commissioner for securing proper administration and to see that their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were founded." Section 59 of the act, which deals with mutts, says a madathipathi (head of the mutt) is only a trustee and a suit for his removal can be filed by the commissioner or "by any two or more persons having interest and having obtained the consent of the commissioner." Such a suit can be instituted in a civil court "to obtain a decree for removing the trustee of a mutt or of a specific endowment attached to the mutt." The removal of the mutt head can be sought on the following grounds: If he is of unsound mind; If he suffers from any physical or mental defect or infirmity, which renders him unfit to continue; If he ceases to profess Hindu religion or the mutt's tenets; If he is convicted for any offence involving moral delinquency; If he breaches trust in respect of any of the properties of the institution; If he wastes funds or properties of the institution or wrongly uses such funds; If he adopts devices to convert the income of the institution or properties into pathakanika (offerings made as gifts, which the head has the discretion to give away); If he leads an immoral life or leads a life that will bring the office of the mutt head into disrepute; If he persistently and wilfully defaults in discharge of his duties.

The act also has provisions for putting an alternative working administration in place -- laid down in section 60 -- if the incumbent is unable to perform the "functions of the trustee." The commissioner would then have to make a preliminary inquiry of the mutt's affairs and work out an "arrangement for the administration of the mutt and its endowments" until the "disability" of the trustee ceases or another trustee (madathipathi) succeeds to the high office. "In making any such arrangement, the commissioner shall have due regard to the claims of the disciples of the mutt, if any," the section says. However, the power to appoint a successor to head the mutt rests only with the incumbent