VIJAYAWADA: A division bench of the AP High Court on Monday reserved orders on a writ petition and an interlocutory application filed by Rajya Sabha MP Dr Subramanian Swamy opposing government control over the Tirumala temple and seeking independent audit of TTD finances.
The bench, comprising acting Chief Justice C Praveen Kumar and Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy, heard arguments presented by Swamy and TTD counsel K Lalitha. Swamy urged the court to direct the State government and the TTD to order an audit of the latter’s accounts, jewellery and also usage of its funds in the last three financial years.
The BJP leader, who was present in court as party in person, also questioned the constitutionality of the management of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.
He has filed the public interest litigation to ‘liberate’ the TTD and 11 other temples from government control and to get the court to declare Sections 15, 29, 96, 97, 97-A, 97-B, 106, 108, 109, 110 and 115 of the Endowments Act as ultra vires of Articles 14, 25, 26, 29(1) and 31-A (1) (b) of the Constitution.
According to him, as per Article 31 (A), administration or management of a temple by government can only be for a limited period and as such, the TTD’s management of the temple for several years is contrary to the Constitution. The standing counsel of the TTD K Lalitha submitted that there was no prima facie material to show that there is any mismanagement of funds by the TTD.
Recalling that temples of Tirumala and Tirupati were directly managed by kings and rulers since the time of the Satavahanas, she contended that Dr Swamy’s arguments do not hold water. In the entire affidavit, there is not even a whisper about mismanagement. As such, the petitioner cannot ask for that relief (independent audit). TTD is strictly conducting audit as per the provisions of the TTD Act. The burden lies on the petitioner to show prima facie... place material with regard to mismanagement, she said.
The counsel further argued that Article 31 is not applicable to the TTD as it is not a denominational temple. “Right from the Pallavas, Satavahanas and Krishnadevaraya to the East India Company, it has always been managed by the sovereigns. Hence, the question of giving back and the application of Article 31 does not arise,” she submitted. Final arguments will be presented soon.