In a recent assembly session on Wednesday, February 21, the Karnataka government approved amendments to the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment bill, stirring significant debate and controversy across the state. The key provision of the revised bill mandates temples with an annual income surpassing one crore rupees to allocate 10 percent of their earnings to a newly established ‘Common Pool Fund’ (CPF).
Furthermore, temples falling within the income bracket of Rs 10 lakh to 1 crore annually are now obligated to contribute 5 percent of their earnings to the CPF. These amendments aim to enhance oversight of temple management and finances, channeling a portion of their revenues towards specific government-mandated initiatives.
The designated purposes for the CPF include supporting financially disadvantaged priests, elevating the infrastructure of C-grade temples, and facilitating quality education for the children of priests. While proponents of the bill argue that these measures are crucial for the welfare of both temple personnel and the broader community, critics express concerns regarding transparency, accountability, and the potential misuse of funds.
The introduction of the amendments has sparked widespread debate and criticism from various sectors of society. Some stakeholders question the government’s authority to intervene in temple finances, citing the religious autonomy guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Others raise apprehensions about the equitable distribution of funds and the potential for political interference in the management of religious institutions.
Amidst the contentious discourse surrounding the bill, calls for clarity and dialogue between government officials, religious leaders, and community representatives have intensified. Many advocate for a comprehensive review of the amended provisions to address concerns and ensure the fair and effective utilization of temple revenues.
As the controversy continues to unfold, the Karnataka government faces mounting pressure to navigate the complexities of religious governance while upholding principles of transparency, accountability, and respect for religious autonomy. The outcome of these deliberations will undoubtedly shape the future landscape of temple administration and financial regulation in the state.
