The Andhra Jyothi article had reported that the appointments of office-holders and the peethadhipathi (head) of the organisation would be decided by the Endowments Department, and that the decisions taken by the mutt management would henceforth be held invalid.
Taking an accusatory tone, the report says that although the mutt has so far developed through the organisation’s efforts and funds from donors, the government will now take up its responsibilities, and that the Endowments Commissioner will henceforth make all administrative decisions. The report also claimed that earlier governments had tried to bring the mutt under their control but had failed, whereas the TDP government had issued orders completely handing over the mutt’s responsibilities to its management.
The rejoinder
However, as the mutt’s statement clarifies, the latest orders by the YSRCP government have only made a minor change to the previous orders issued by the TDP government earlier this year in February.
In the past, the government has granted exemption to the mutt from various sections of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, granting some amount of independence in matters related to appointments and fund management.
In April 2018, the mutt had requested the government to extend exemption from certain sections of the Endowments Act for ten more years “for taking up developmental works and to provide amenities to the devotees.”
On recommendation from the Endowments Department Commissioner, the state government had issued a GO in February 2019, granting exemption to the mutt “from the operations of the provisions under Sections 23, 29, 39 and 54(1)” of the Endowments Act, 1987 for the next 5 years.
But the recent GO issued by the YSRCP government on Friday says that the exemption is limited to Sections 23, 29 and 39 of the Act. It leaves out the exemption from Section 54(1).
Sections 23, 29 and 39 deal with the rights of the institution over administrative affairs and fund management, the appointment of an Executive Officer and their powers and duties, and the power of the Endowments Department Commissioner to transfer office-holders of the mutt. The removed section 54(1), which has led to the controversy, relates to the nomination of mathadhipathi (head of the mutt).
It simply states that the head of the mutt can nominate his successor who already meets certain criteria, including “basic knowledge of the Hindu religion and philosophy” and “knowledge of the relevant scriptures”. But the nomination must be recognised by the Commissioner.
Section 54 (1) of the Act reads, “Subject to the provisions of section 53, a mathadhipathi may nominate his successor. The fact of such nomination shall be intimated to the Commissioner, within ninety days of such nomination and the Commissioner may recognise such nomination. A nomination shall not be complete unless it is recognised by the Commissioner. The conditions for recognition shall be such as may be prescribed.”
It is this change, that was interpreted by the newspaper article as a total transfer of power from the head of the mutt to the Commissioner. The mutt management has called the news false and “baseless”.
"The above publication of news by you is all untrue, baseless and without making any iota of efforts to verify the contents of the orders issued by the government. Your statement has mislead the public at large...By the publication, the reputation of this Mutt and its Peethadhipathi has been tarnished as the statement has gone on viral on social media,” the rejoinder said.
