Yellanti Renuka, vs State Of A.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 9508 AP

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                         &
      HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

                  WRIT APPEAL No.431 of 2022

  Yellanti Renuka, W/o. Koteswara Rao, aged about 54 years,
  Hindu,    R/o.D.No.5-1-248/N/1,  Sriram   Nagar   Colony,
  Khammam, Khammam District, and another
                                               ... Appellants
                            Versus

  State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
  (Endowments) Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi,
  Amaravati, Guntur District, and others
                                              ... Respondents

  Counsel for appellants           :   Mr. M. Chalapathi Rao

  Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 :     G.P. for Endowments


                             JUDGMENT

Dt.09.12.2022

(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This intra-court appeal would call in question the legality

and validity of the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the

learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition preferred by

the petitioners seeking issuance of a writ, order or direction

declaring the action of the respondents, particularly, that of

respondents 2 to 5 in shifting/relocating the idol/deity of

"Sri Mahankali Ammavaru" installed on 15.03.1976 in

-2- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

accordance with the Hindu Agamasastras, rites and rituals

from the sanctum sanctorum of Sri Mahankali Ammavari

temple situated at Issappalem village, hamlet of Mulakaluru,

Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District and also the tomb with

bust of Gunji Chukkamma from the place now located within

the precincts of the temple, on the pretext of reconstruction

(Jirnoddarana), as illegal, arbitrary, opposed to Hindu

dharma, faith, rituals and sentiments of the devotees of the

locality in particular and all over the State in general and the

objects and reasons of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious

Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, "the 1987

Act") and violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of

India and consequently direct respondents 2 to 5 not to

relocate/shift the idol/deity of "Sri Mahankali Ammavaru" from

the sanctum sanctorum of the temple as existing now on the

ground and the tomb with bust of Gunji Chukkamma from the

present location in the premises of the temple situated at

Issapalem village, hamlet of Mulakaluru, Narasaraopet

Mandal, Guntur District.

2. The learned single Judge relied on the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishwanath v.

                                     -3-                                 HCJ & DVSS,J
                                                                  W.A.No.431 of 2022

Thakur Radha Ballabhji, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1044,

to hold that the writ petition is maintainable. It is also held,

in petitioners' favour, that Articles 25 and 26 of the

Constitution of India protect the rights of the petitioners to

ensure that the methods of worship and principles of temple

construction and maintenance followed by the denomination

of the petitioners, which are an essential part of their religious

denomination, are followed and they are entitled to approach

this court in the event of any complaint of violation of these

rights. However, on merits, the learned single Judge has

declined to interfere in the matter on findings that

translocation of deity to another place is permissible as long

as the said translocation is done without a mala fide intention

and with all due respect and appropriate ceremonies being

conducted for the said purpose and further that the

petitioners have not relied upon any specific Agamasastra or

any passage of any Agamasastra to support their stand

against the translocation of deity of "Sri Mahankali

Ammavaru" and, in addition, that the petitioners could not

demonstrate that translocation of the idol would be violative

of the religious practices of the respondent-temple.

                                      -4-                            HCJ & DVSS,J
                                                              W.A.No.431 of 2022




PETITIONERS' CASE:

3. The mother of petitioner No.1 Gunji Chukkamma, who

was originally native of Issappalem village, Narasaraopet

Mandal, Guntur District, settled at Khammam town after the

death of her husband and petitioner No.2 is closely associated

with petitioner No.1. Both of them claim to be ardent

devotees of "Sri Mahankali Ammavaru". They constructed a

temple of "Sri Mahankali Ammavaru" at Issappalem village

and got installed idol of deity and goddess "Sri Mahankali

Ammavaru" at the vacant site situated immediately on the

East of the main road running from Narasaraopet to

Sattenapalli, the temple facing West. The idol was installed

on 17.03.1976 in accordance with Hindu Agamasastras and

Hindu rites and rituals were also performed at the time of

installation of the deity by vedic scholars and purohits by

chanting veda mantras. An additional extent of 75 ¾ cents in

Sy.No.57A of Issappalem village, at the place where the idol

was installed, was purchased on 31.05.1976 by Gunji

Chukkamma, mother of petitioner No.1, and petitioner No.2.

Temple was constructed on the said site in due course of time

and, as such, they were recognized and became the

-5- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

hereditary trustees of the said temple. The idol was installed

at an auspicious time amidst the chanting of holy mantras and

as per Hindu Agamasastras. "Sri Mahankali Ammavaru" is

believed to be a very powerful deity by the devotees in and

around the locality and the adjacent districts and they have

immense faith in her, as their desires were fulfilled after

offering prayers to her. Later Sikhara Kalisham was installed

over the temple in accordance with Hindu rituals and

ceremonies, which is substantiated by pamphlet dated

28.03.1983 and names of both the petitioners are engraved

as hereditary trustees of the temple and they have been

paying land revenue for the landed property of the temple. A

further area of 17 ½ cents was purchased by registered sale

deed dated 07.01.1985. Petitioners are, thus, persons

interested in the welfare and development of the temple and

poojas and Nitya Naivedya Deeparadhana are being offered to

"Sri Mahankali Ammavaru" and other religious activities are

being performed in the above temple under their supervision.

3.1 On the request of the mother of petitioner No.1, the

Assistant Commissioner, Endowments vide order

R.C.No.A5/11338 of 1996 dated 19.10.1996, after due

-6- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

enquiry, passed a reasoned order recognizing petitioner No.1

as founder trustee of the said temple. After the death of

Gunji Chukkamma, her statue (bust) was installed in the

premises of the temple. In reply to a query made under the

Right to Information Act, the Assistant Commissioner, Guntur,

supplied information stating that the mother of petitioner No.1

and petitioner No.2 managed the said temple as hereditary

trustees. However, subsequently, respondent No.5 took over

the management of the temple after the order passed by

respondent No.4 was kept in abeyance.

3.2 It is the contention of the petitioners that respondent

No.5 is making resolute efforts to demolish the temple on the

pressure exerted by local politicians of the ruling party and

started collecting donations on the pretext of reconstructing

the temple without any reasonable cause. Construction of the

temple is technically good and there is neither necessity nor

any valid reason to demolish it. At the most, if the

Department is interested, it can as well develop the temple

without touching the sanctum sanctorum of the deity and

tomb of Gunji Chukkamma, original founder of the temple.

Respondent No.5 convened a meeting inviting petitioner No.1

-7- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

and the local public; however, local public did not attend the

meeting except political leaders and their followers, who are

more interested in collecting donations and amassing wealth

on the premise of reconstruction of the temple. Official

respondents 2 to 5 yielded to the pressure of the politicians

and are proceeding ahead for the reconstruction. Petitioners

and other devotees earnestly believe that the original idol

which was installed in 1976 possessed immense power;

therefore, it should not be shifted from the present holy place

installed at an auspicious time, to any other place.

3.3 According to the petitioners, ancient and famous

temples at any place situated in India are not shifted nor the

idols removed to other places. Therefore, the said action of

the respondents in shifting the idol on the pretext of

reconstruction of the temple is illegal, unlawful, opposed to

Hindu faith, Dharma, belief and sentiments of the devotees of

the locality, objects of the 1987 Act and Articles 25 and 26 of

the Constitution of India.

RESPONDENTS' CASE:

4. Respondents 4 and 5 filed separate counter-affidavit

before the learned single Judge. The sum and substance of

-8- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

their stand in the counter-affidavit is that the tomb (bust) of

Gunji Chukkamma is not proposed to be relocated and the

relocation of Moolavirat of "Sri Mahankali Ammavaru" is

proposed to be done after taking opinion from experts and

there is no Agama violation in proposing to shift Moolavirat.

It is the specific stand of the respondents that the temple was

constructed around 45 years back and is in dilapidated state

and moreover it is closer to the road and there is around 300

sq. yards of vacant site belonging to the temple, as such, as

and when there is huge rush, it has become difficult to

maintain the devotees, as they are standing on the R&B road

blocking the Narasaraopet-Sattenapalli highway. It is

proposed to construct a stone-carved temple in the open

place behind the temple. At the present place where the deity

is erected, same will be utilized by installing a Sri Chakram

after following the Agamas and rituals and Kumkuma Archana

will be done on daily basis at the said place. The temple will

be moved around 25-30 meters back in a stone-carved

architectural temple; as such, the temple will last for the

years to come. The writ petition is filed only to demonstrate

petitioners' authority over the temple, without there being any

substantive cause of action.

                                     -9-                          HCJ & DVSS,J
                                                           W.A.No.431 of 2022

5. It is admitted in the counter-affidavit of respondent

No.4 that the temple is famous for Annaprasanams,

Aksharabyasams etc. According to the respondents, as per

Agamasastra, human-erected idols can be re-erected/shifted

after following due procedure, but coming to Swayambu

temples, the same is impermissible unless there is a way

shown in the Agamas and that in similar circumstances, the

Peddamma Ammavari temple in Hyderabad was reconstructed

and the Moolavirat was re-located because of paucity of place

and even in the Jogulamba Ammavari temple, which is a

Shakti Peetam, the Moolavirat was shifted back after

reconstruction of the temple; as such, shifting the present

Moolavirat is in the interest of devotees and wellbeing of the

village. If the same is done, it will be convenient for worship

including ingress and egress to the temple and it will save the

devotees from suffocation inside the sanctum sanctorum, as

there is no flow of free air inside the sanctum sanctorum. It

is further the stand of the respondents that if the proposed

construction and shifting of the Moolavirat is allowed after

following all the rituals and agamas, the temple will be at its

highest glory, as the proposed construction will be done after

following the directions of the Agama advisors who have

-10- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

advised to carve the stones so that future generations

understand the greatness of Hindu mythology.

6. Respondent No.5 would also admit that since after

coming into existence of the temple in the year 1976, faith of

the devotees in the Goddess in fulfillment of their wishes, has

gained momentum tremendously throughout the State and in

the passage of time, "Sri Mahankali Ammavaru" has become

popular deity. The temple was consecrated and construction

with installation of "Sri Mahankali Ammavaru" in the premises

and the glory of the persons who constructed the temple

continues to be ever remembered and enthroned in the hearts

of the devotees of the Goddess. The relocation is aimed at

relieving the hardship of the devotees while visiting the

temple and redeeming their vows to the Goddess devoutly

and to enable them to experience spiritual ecstasy and

contemplation. The shifting/relocation is proposed in strict

and scrupulous observance of Agamasastras after obtaining

views and opinions of Agama Pandits and Agama Advisors.

7. Along with the counter-affidavit of respondents 4, 5 & 6

filed in the writ appeal, opinion of the experts, Agama Pandits

etc., have been submitted, wherein they have approved the

-11- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

proposed relocation of the deity on the ground that the

temple was established previously by human and a new

temple can be constructed and reestablishment can be done

as per Saiva Agama Sastram. The first opinion is of

Mr. Allavarapu Subrahmanya Deekshitavadhani, TTD

Vedapandit. The second opinion is of Mr. Kallakuri Satya

Venkatasubrahmanya Sivacharya and the third opinion is from

Sri Bala Tripura Sundari Saivagama Vidya Peetham.

Mr. Kallakuri Satya Venkatasubrahmanya Sivacharya has

gone to the extent of questioning the construction of the

present temple, for which no opinion was sought from him

and by doing so, it is eroding the faith of the devotees, which

is emphatically and categorically admitted by the official

respondents in their counter-affidavit before the learned

single Judge. Same is the case with the opinion from Sri Bala

Tripura Sundari Saivagama Vidya Peetham.

ISSUE IN THE WRIT APPEAL:

8. The issue which we are now required to consider, on the

basis of the material available before us, is the permissibility

of such relocation of Moolavirat, i.e. the main deity vis-à-vis

the permissibility under the religious practices without

-12- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

violating and offending the faith of the devotees and diluting

the spirituality and belief in "Sri Mahankali Ammavaru" that

she will fulfill their wishes.

9. The principle on the subject has been dealt with and

delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Sri Venkataramana Devaru and others v. State of

Mysore and others, reported in AIR 1958 SC 255. While

discussing as to what is a matter of religion within the

protection of Article 26(b) of the Constitution, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court referred to the judgment rendered in

Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v.

Laskhmindra Thirtha Swamiar, reported in air 1954 SC

282, wherein it was held that it embraced not merely matters

of doctrine and belief pertaining to the religion but also the

practice of it, or to put it in terms of Hindus theology, not

merely its Gnana but also its Bhakti and Karma Kandas. The

Supreme Court quoted the observations of Mukherjea, J (as

he then was) in Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (supra) in

the following manner:

"...in the first place, what constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with

-13- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

reference to the doctrines of that religion itself. If the tenets of any religious sect of the Hindus prescribe that offerings of food should be given to the idol at particular hours of the day, that periodical ceremonies should be performed in a certain way at certain periods of the year or that there should be daily recital of sacred texts or oblations to the sacred fire, all these would be regarded as parts of religion and the mere fact that they involve expenditure of money or employment of priests and servants or the use of marketable commodities would not make them secular activities partaking of a commercial or economic character; all of them are religious practices and should be regarded as matters of religion within the meaning of Article 26(b)."

10. It was settled in Sri Venkataramana Devaru (supra)

that the matters of religion in Article 26(b) include even

practices which are regarded by the community as part of its

religion and that it has to be considered whether exclusion of a

person from entering into a temple for worship is a matter of

religion according to Hindu Ceremonial Law. It was held

therein that there has been difference of opinion among the

writers as to whether image worship had a place in the religion

of the Hindus, as revealed in the Vedas; on the one hand, we

have hymns in praise of Gods, and on the other, we have

-14- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

highly philosophical passages in the Upanishads describing the

Supreme Being as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent

and transcending all names and forms. When we come to

the Puranas, we find a marked change. The conception had

become established of Trinity of Gods, Brahma, Vishnu and

Siva as manifestations of the three aspects of creation,

preservation and destruction attributed to the Supreme Being

in the Upanishads. The Supreme Court, for example, quoted

the passage in the Taittiriya Upanishad, Brigu Valli,

First Anuvaka, which reads as under:

"That from which all beings are born, by which they live and into which they enter and merge."

The Gods have distinct forms ascribed to them and their worship at home and in temples is ordained as certain means of attaining salvation. These injunctions have had such a powerful hold over the minds of the people that daily worship of the deity in temple came to be regarded as one of the obligatory duties of a Hindu. It was during this period that temples were constructed all over the country dedicated to Vishnu, Rudra, Devi, Skanda, Ganesha and so forth, and worship in the temple can be said to have become the practical religion of all sections of the Hindus ever since. With the growth in

-15- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

importance of temples and of worship therein, more and more attention came to be devoted to the ceremonial law relating to the construction of temples, installation of idols therein and conduct of worship of the deity, and numerous are the treatises that came to be written for its exposition. These are known as Agamas, and there are as many as 28 of them relating to the Saiva temples, the most important of them being the Kamikagama, the Karanagama and the Suprabhedagama, while the Vikhanasa and the Pancharatra are the chief Agamas of the Vaishnavas. These Agamas, contain elaborate rules as to how the temple is to be constructed, where the principal deity is to be consecrated, and where the other Devatas are to be installed and where the several classes of worshippers are to stand and worship."

11. In His Holiness Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja

Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami etc. v. the State of T.N.,

reported in AIR 1972 SC 1586, a Constitution Bench of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court would observe that institution of

temple worship has an ancient history and according to

Dr. Kane, temples of deities had existed even in the 4th or

5th century B.C. (See History of Dharmasastra Vol. II, Part II,

p. 710). With the construction of temples the institution of

Archakas also came into existence, the Archakas being

-16- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

professional men who made their livelihood by attending on

the images. Just when the cult of worship of Siva and Vishnu

started and developed into two distinct cults is very difficult to

say, but there can be no doubt that in the times of the

Mahabharata these cults were separately developed and there

was keen rivalry between them to such an extent that the

Mahabharata and some of the Puranas endeavoured to

inculcate a spirit of synthesis by impressing that there was no

difference between the two deities. (See p. 725 supra.) With

the establishment of temples and the institution of Archakas,

treatises on rituals were compiled and they are known as

"Agamas". The authority of these Agamas is recognised in Sri

Venkataramana Devaru (supra).

12. It was also observed therein that, where the temple was

to be constructed as per directions of the Agamas, the idol

had to be consecrated in accordance with an elaborate and

complicated ritual accompanied by chanting of mantras and

devotional songs appropriate to the deity were all provided in

the Agamas. On the consecration of the image in the temple

the Hindu worshippers believe that the Divine Spirit has

descended into the image and from then on the image of the

-17- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

deity is fit to be worshipped. It is believed that when a

congregation of worshippers participates in the worship a

particular attitude of aspiration and devotion is developed and

confers great spiritual benefit. The second object is to

preserve the image from pollution, defilement or desecration.

It is part of the religious belief of a Hindu worshipper that

when the image is polluted or defiled the Divine Spirit in the

image diminishes or even vanishes. That is a situation which

every devotee or worshipper looks upon with horror. Dr Kane

has quoted the Brahmapurana on the topic of Punah-pratistha

(Re-consecration of images in temples) at

p. 904 of his History of Dharmasastra referred to above. The

Brahmapurana says that "when an image is broken into two

or is reduced to particles, is burnt, is removed from its

pedestal, is insulted, has ceased to be worshipped, is touched

by beasts like donkeys or falls on impure ground or is

worshipped with mantras of other deities or is rendered

impure by the touch of outcastes and the like -- in these ten

contingencies, God ceases to indwell therein".

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that

protection of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is not

-18- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

limited to matters of doctrine. They extend also to acts done

in furtherance of religion and, therefore, they contain a

guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes

of worships which are integral parts of the religion.

14. In Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v.

Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others, reported in AIR 1960

SC 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval a

judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court in Hari

Raghunath Patvaedhan, reported in AIR 1920 Bom 67. It

was held by the Bombay High Court that under Hindu law, the

manager of a public temple has no right to remove the image

from the old temple and install it in another new building.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted the interesting feature that

in the case before the Bombay High Court, Dr. P.V. Kane, who

is considered to be an authority on religious text relating to

Agamas, in his course of argument, stated as follows:

"According to the Pratishtha-Mayukha of Nilkantha and other ancient works an image is to be removed permanently only in case of unavoidable necessity, such as where the current of a river carries away the image. Here the image is intact. It is only the temple that is dilapidated. For repairing it, the image need not necessarily be removed. Even

-19- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

if it may be necessary to remove the image, that will be only temporarily. The manager has under Hindu law no power to effect permanent removal of an image in the teeth of opposition from a large number of the worshippers. In the instances cited by the appellant, worshippers had consented to the removal. Permanent removal of an image without unavoidable necessity is against Hindu sentiment."

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said judgment,

further quoted Shah, J (Crump, J), who observed as follows:

"It is not disputed that the existing building is in a ruinous condition and that it may be that for the purpose of effecting the necessary repairs the image may have to be temporarily removed. Still the question is whether the defendant as manager is entitled to remove the image with a view to its installation in another building which is near the existing building. Taking the most liberal view of the powers of the manager, I do not think that as the manager of a public temple he can do what he claims the power to do viz. to remove the image from its present position and to install it in the new building. The image is consecrated in its present position for a number of years and there is the existing temple. To remove the image from that temple and to install it in another building would be practically putting a new temple in place of the

-20- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

existing temple. Whatever may be the occasions on which the installation of a new image as a substitute for the old may be allowable according to the Hindu law, it is not shown on behalf of the defendant that the ruinous condition of the existing building is a ground for practically removing the image from its present place to a new place permanently. We are not concerned in this suit with the question of the temporary removal which may be necessary when the existing building is repaired."

16. After quoting the above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

noted that the case is an authority for the proposition that the

idol cannot be removed permanently to another place,

because that would be tantamount to establishing a new

temple. However, if the public agreed to a temporary

removal, it could be done for a valid reason.

17. In Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar

Mullick and another, reported in AIR 1925 PC 139, the

issue was whether a deed of trust creating a temple also

created an injunction against removal of the deity. The Privy

Council analyzed this provision and stated that the last

condition made the idol immovable, except upon providing for

the dedicatee another Thakur Bari of the same or larger

-21- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

value. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reproduced the same

in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi (supra) which is as under:

"The true view of this is that the will of the idol in regard to location must be respected. If, in the course of a proper and unassailable administration of the worship of the idol by the Shebait, it be thought that a family idol should change its location, the will of the idol itself, expressed through his guardian, must be given effect to."

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Narayan Bhagwantrao

Gosavi (supra) further observed that their Lordships ordered

the appointment of a disinterested next friend, who was to

commune with the deity and decide what course should be

adopted, and later the instructions of the deity vouchsafed to

that representative were carried out.

19. In Chockalingam (now died) v. Nambi Pandiyan &

others, reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 5985, a single

Judge of the Madras High Court relied upon Narayan

Bhagwantrao Gosavi (supra) wherein it was held that idol of

Lord Shiva cannot be removed permanently to another place,

because, that would tantamount to establishment of a new

Temple, but however, if the public agreed to temporarily

-22- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

remove the Idol, it can be done for valid reasons and in the

present case, there is no document to show that the removal

was only temporary and there is also no document to show

that the public agreed for temporary removal. The learned

single Judge of Madras High Court, thus, concluded that idol

cannot be removed.

20. Renowned author Dr. Pandurang Vaman Kane

(P.V. Kane) in his treatise HISTORY OF DHARMASASTRA as

part of Government Oriental Series, Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute, Poona, Vol. II Part II Chapter XXVI, has

discussed the concept of Punah-pratishta (Re-consecration of

images in temples). The author would discuss ten

contingencies as discussed in our present judgment in the

previous paragraph when God ceases to dwell therein. The

Brahmapurana quoted by the Devapratisthatattva and the

Nirnayasindhu says when an image is broken into two or is

reduced to particles, it should be removed according to sastric

rules and another should be installed in its place. The book

also deals with the issue of Jirnoddhara (rehabilitating old or

dilapidated temples). According to the author, the subject of

Jirnoddhara is closely connected with the rituals of Punah-

                                -23-                         HCJ & DVSS,J
                                                      W.A.No.431 of 2022

pratishta (Re-consecration of images in temples) and is dealt

with in the Agnipurana, wherein extensive procedure for

Jirnoddhara is provided. Jirnoddhara is done when the image

in a temple or a linga is burnt, or reduced to particles or is

removed to another place. The Agnipurana says that if an

image or linga is carried off by the strong current of a river, it

may be re-consecrated elsewhere according to the rites

prescribed in the sastras. The Agnipurana further mandates

that a linga that is reputed to have been established by the

asuras (like Banasura) or famous sages or by gods or by

those who were expert in Tantra should not be removed to

another place, whether it be worn out or broken, even after

the performance of prescribed rites.

CONCLUSION:

21. Thus, according to the Dharmasastra dealing with the

principles of Punah-pratishta (Re-consecration of images in

temples) and Jirnoddhara, when an image is polluted on

occurrence of ten contingencies, God ceases to dwell therein

requiring re-consecration of image in temples. However,

when the original consecration has been done by those who

were experts in tantra/rituals, the image should not be

-24- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

removed to another place whether it be worn out or broken,

even after the performance of prescribed rites. It also

appears settled that relocation of the deity from the place

where it was originally consecrated as per Dharmic rites,

rituals and worship, would amount to construction of a new

temple, which is not permissible in Dharmasastra. Even for

Jirnoddhara, the image should not be removed to another

place. It can be removed temporarily when the public so

consents for effecting repairs in the temple. However, in no

case, the image can be permanently shifted to another place.

Doing so would be against the doctrine of Dharmasastra and

belief pertaining to Hindu religion as also the practice of

religion as is understood and followed in terms of Hindu

theology. Since the matter of religion within the protection of

Article 26(b) of the Constitution includes even practices which

are regarded by the community as part of its religion, any

violation of the rituals, beliefs or practices mandated by

Dharmasastra, Agnipurana and Agamas, would be in violation

of the constitutional provision contained in Article 26(b) of the

Constitution.

                                    -25-                         HCJ & DVSS,J
                                                          W.A.No.431 of 2022

22. In the case at hand, the relocation/re-consecration of

the idol/deity of "Sri Mahankali Ammavaru" is proposed not

for any reason approved in the Dharmasastra, but for

providing more comfort and convenience to the members of

public and devotees as also for the anticipated widening of

road. Such contingencies have not been approved by

Dharmasastra including Agnipurana to be a valid reason for

relocation and re-consecration of the idol and the same would

amount to construction of a new temple. With regard to plea

of structural weakness of the existing structure, which is

raised by the respondents, this Court notices that except for

"Fitness Report, dated 13.12.2021" issued by a private

architect, no material is filed to justify the plea that the

existing structure is weak and is likely to collapse. Even the

certificate, dated 13.12.2021, does not state that there is an

imminent threat of the existing structure collapsing. This

certificate is also obtained long after the writ petition was

filed. Since, admittedly, the temple is famous for

Annaprasanams, Aksharabyasams etc., and the idol was

installed at an auspicious time amidst the chanting of holy

mantras and as per Hindu Agamasastras and "Sri Mahankali

Ammavaru" is believed to be a powerful deity to the devotees

-26- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

in and around the locality, relocation of the idol to a different

place would hurt their sentiments, feelings and spiritual belief.

Therefore, the proposed relocation on the reasoning assigned

by the respondents in the counter-affidavit does not appear to

be permissible according to Dharmasastra, thereby violating

Article 26(b) of the Constitution. Therefore, the order passed

by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition

deserves to be, and is, hereby, set aside.

23. Resultantly, the writ appeal and writ petition are

allowed and it is declared that the action of respondents 2 to

5 in shifting/relocating the idol/deity of "Sri Mahankali

Ammavaru" installed on 15.03.1976 as also the tomb with

bust of Gunji Chukkamma from the place now located within

the precincts of the temple on the pretext of reconstruction, is

illegal, arbitrary, opposed to Hindu dharma, faith, rituals and

sentiments of the devotees. As a corollary, respondents 2 to

5 are directed not to relocate/shift the idol/deity of "Sri

Mahankali Ammavaru" from the sanctum sanctorum of the

temple as existing now on the ground and the tomb with the

bust of Gunji Chukkamma located within the precincts of the

-27- HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.431 of 2022

temple, situated at Issappalem village, hamlet of Mulakaluru,

Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District.

No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall stand closed.

        Sd/-                                      Sd/-
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ               D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J

MRR