The News
Minute: Hyderabad: Saturday, October 27, 2018.
An
RTI applicant had approached Central Information Commission, stating that TTD
refused to divulge certain information on allegedly missing temple ornaments.
A
legal battle is brewing in the Hyderabad High Court as the Tirumala Tirupati
Devasthanams (TTD), the governing body of the Lord Venkateswara temple atop
Tirumala, has argued that it did not come under the purview of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act as it is not a 'public authority'. The TTD spelt out its
stand earlier this week in a petition, after it moved the court over orders by
the Central Information Commission (CIC), to divulge certain information to an
RTI applicant.
The
petitioner, BKSR Ayyangar, had filed an RTI application with the Prime
Minister's office in 2017 asking for information on ornaments donated to the
temple by 16th-century ruler Sri Krishnadevaraya, which were allegedly
'missing'. Unsatisfied with the response he received, the petitioner approached
the Commission in April this year.
The
petitioner also pointed out to an instance where the TTD allegedly demolished a
thousand-pillared 'mandapam' in front of the main entrance of the temple, in
breach of Archeological norms and said that several spiritual leaders had
vehemently opposed the move.
Speaking
to TNM, Central Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu explained, “There
was a second appeal before CIC about certain archaeological related matters and
the information was available with the TTD and not with the Central Archaeology
Department. Therefore, I extended my orders asking TTD to provide the
information but the religious institution said that it’s not a public
authority. In that context, I studied whether that argument stands and argued
that TTD 'can be' a public authority and should come under the RTI Act.”
He
added, “I asked the TTD authorities why they don’t consider themselves as a
public authority. That was what my order stated. Then they moved the Hyderabad
HC saying that the CIC does not have jurisdiction over a state-body like the
TTD. They took up a technical ground. I agree with them about the jurisdiction
but my argument stands that the TTD has a moral and legal responsibility to reveal
the information,” he added.
Background
The
issue of demanding transparency is far from new. In a press meet held in 2016
by People Against Corruption (PAC), then State Information Commissioner and
advocate P Vijayababu had said, “Not just the TTD, but all religious bodies in
the state make the same claim and say that they do not come under the RTI act
and often refuse to divulge information. It is a contempt of court that the TTD
takes that stand.”
However,
this was not always the case with the TTD, as it had shared information in the
past under the RTI Act, until 2012.
Speaking
to TNM, former Executive Officer of the TTD, IYR Krishna Rao said, “The TTD
should absolutely come under the RTI Act. In fact, it was under the act even
when I was the EO and we were giving the information. Subsequently, someone who
came as the EO felt that it would unnecessarily embarrass them; so an order was
issued, which no one has seriously challenged in the court of law so far, and
thus it continues to be so like this.”
Krishna
Rao, who was also the former Chief Secretary of united Andhra Pradesh, said,
“It is a statutory body. There is an Endowments Act that says that any
statutory body comes under the purview of the RTI Act. There is no way they can
say that they are not a public authority.”
He
also agreed that the TTD had a moral and legal right to share information with
the public.
The
TTD’s stand
The
petitioner, in his appeal to the CIC, said that the “TTD stonewalled
information requests, refusing to come under the RTI Act,” though it was part
of the Endowments Department of Andhra Pradesh, which meant that it was a
public authority.
The
CIC also noted that the TTD was ‘neither transparent nor accountable.’
The
CIC pointed out in a letter on September 2012 that the TTD had responded to an
RTI request and furnished information about the thousand-pillar mandapam, but
changed its stance within two months, stating that it was doing so under the
instructions of the Executive Officer of their religious body.
“The
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam is a single religious institution, which is
governed by the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987. Nowhere in the said Endowments Act, it is said that this
Act is brought out to establish or constitute ingredients to fall into the
definition of Public Authority under the RTI Act. On the contrary, it is very
specifically said in the Preamble of the said Act that it is only for the administration
and governance of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments in
the State of Andhra Pradesh,” the TTD said in a letter dated November 17, 2012,
to the petitioner.
Further,
the TTD argued that “constitutional protection was available to religious
institutions, which were independent, autonomous bodies, not established or
constituted by the government.”
The
TTD also stated that it was administered and governed only indirectly by the
state government, which appointed Trust Board members, who functioned as an
autonomous body.
The
TTD also cited a Kerala High Court judgement from 2011, which said that temples
and their offices were not established or constituted by or under the
Constitution of India or by notification or order issued by any government,
which meant that they were not owned by the government.
“Every
religious institution has the right to manage its religious affairs, including
its religious activities, income and expenditure, assets and liabilities, and
to keep them secure as it relates to their specific religious institution only.
It may be appreciated that any religious body - Hindu, Muslim or Christian -
may not be willing to share its information with the public other than what is
warranted and requires to be shared with them. In other words, these religious
institutions are complying with all Statutory Laws all the time and also the
freedom given under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution,” the TTD said in its
letter.
The
bone of contention
In
2011, a committee was constituted by TTD headed by former Supreme Court Judge
Justice Wadhwa, which submitted a 137-page report.
In
the report, Justice Wadhwa had noted, “We have suggested to the TTD to make use
of modern technology to have a more transparent and foolproof system for the
protection of jewels”.
Citing
the report along with several other similar committee reports, the CIC, in its
recent order, noted that the “TTD has done nothing to be transparent about it,
but illegally attempted to escape from the scrutiny of citizens under RTI Act.
It is clear that TTD did not honour the recommendations of two former Judges of
Supreme Court in the committees appointed by the State Government.”
Stating
that the TTD could not ‘escape accountability under the RTI Act’, the CIC
observed, “The TTD is basically a trust and administrative body with the duty
to provide good governance of the temple affairs, as per law. Whether under RTI
or not, they are answerable to people/devotees for every rupee they spend,
because that money belonged to the people in general and they are wielding a
high power to spend hundreds of crores of rupees every day. They have a duty to
answer every letter, criticism, question and petition.”
The
CIC also noted that the management, administration and organisation of TTD were
subject to the guidelines issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh through
the Ministry of Endowments, which meant that the Government controlled the TTD
through the constitution of the Board of Trustees and appointment of the Executive
Officer. This, in turn, the CIC argued, was enough to bring the TTD under the
RTI Act.
“It’s
absurd, immoral and illegal to plead that TTD is not accountable to people
under the RTI Act. Such an unreasonable plea raises suspicion that something is
rotten in it, and it wants to hide. Being one of the most efficiently
administered organisation, the TTD has no reason to fear the RTI Act and escape
the accountability or answerability… people have every right to demand every
bit of information about the way they are spending the money they have donated
to Lord Venkateswara,” the CIC said in its concluding remarks.
It
also directed the PMO to inform what action the Government of India was
contemplating to recognise the Tirumala temple as a ‘national monument’ and to
enforce an international obligation to protect the world heritage structures
and ornaments that come under the TTD.
.JPG)
.JPG)
