In the news

• The Karnataka government’s recent move to amend the law governing the taxation of Hindu temples sparked significant debate and controversy.
• It aims to overhaul the existing framework, particularly in terms of income allocation and management.

Proposed Changes in Temple Taxation

The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Bill, 2024 aimed to modify several provisions in the existing law:

• Income Allocation: The proposed change sought to divert 10% of the gross income of temples earning over Rs 1 crore annually to a common pool for temple maintenance. Section 19 of the Act outlines the purposes for which the common fund may be utilized, including religious studies, temple maintenance, and charitable causes.
• Shift in Calculation: This change would shift from the previous norm of allocating 10% of the net income of temples with earnings over Rs 10 lakh annually.
• Dedicated Common Pool: Additionally, 5% of the income of temples earning between Rs 10 lakh and Rs 1 crore annually would have been dedicated to the common pool.
• Priests Welfare: The Congress government proposed utilizing the enhanced funds to support lower-income temples, provide assistance to ailing priests, and offer scholarships to priests’ families.

Additional Amendments Proposed:

• Committee of Management: The Bill proposed including a member skilled in Vishwakarma Hindu temple architecture and sculpture within the committee of management for temples.
• Authority of Rajya Dharmika Parishat: It granted the Rajya Dharmika Parishat the power to appoint the chairman of temple management committees.
• Infrastructure Oversight: The Bill mandated the creation of district-level and state high-level committees to oversee infrastructural projects facilitating temple pilgrimage.

Criticism and Opposition

• Interference into Religious Matters: BJP leaders accused the government of attempting to “rob” Hindu temples and questioned the selective targeting of Hindu institutions.
• Questioning Motives: Concerns were raised regarding the selective taxation of Hindu temples, prompting questions about the government’s intentions.

Comparison with Other States

• Telangana’s Model: Similar to Karnataka, Telangana also mandates temple contributions towards a common good fund, utilized for temple maintenance and related expenses.
• Kerala’s Devaswom Boards: Kerala’s temples are managed by state-run Devaswom Boards, each with its own budget and administrative laws, overseen by government-appointed nominees.

Issues with the Bill

• Government Interference: The appointment of members from Hindu and other religions to temple management committees raises concerns about state involvement in temple affairs.
• Contradiction to Secularism: Perceived as contradicting the principle of secularism advocating for a separation of religion and state involvement in religious matters.
• Conflict with Autonomy: Opposition to the diversion of temple income for a common pool fund highlights concerns about encroachment on religious autonomy and financial mismanagement by the state.

Conclusion

• The Karnataka temple bill controversy underscores the complex interplay between governance, religion, and finance.
• While intended reforms aimed to enhance temple infrastructure and support, differing interpretations and political alignments led to its rejection.
• As states grapple with temple management, a balance between tradition, governance, and public welfare remains a constant challenge.

Try this Question from CS Mains 2018:

Q.How the Indian concept of secularism different from the western model of secularism? Discuss. (10)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now