<p>In the light of the ongoing Sabarimala Reference, the Supreme Court recently recalled its earlier order reserving judgment on the validity of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. The bench observed that the pending reference would have a direct bearing on the case and would await the decision of the 9-judge Constitution Bench.</p><p>The bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe had reserved its judgment on the matter on February 11. The matter in question a plea filed by the Karnataka Government challenging the 2006 decision of the Karnataka High Court which struck down the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997.</p><p>The 1997 Act was enacted to consolidate and replace five earlier laws governing Hindu religious and charitable institutions in different regions of Karnataka.</p><p>Considering the pending constitutional questions in the ongoing Sabarimala Reference, the bench recalled its february order, stating :</p><p>" It is the common say of all the learned counsels that the issues before the nine Judges Constitution Bench (i.e., R.P.(C) No. 3358/2018 in W.P. (C) No. 373/2006 titled as Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors.) are identical to the issues arising in the present batch of appeals. It is admitted that the principle laid down in the nine Judges Constitution Bench will have a direct bearing in this batch of appeals."</p><p>It further ordered : " In view of the above, having recalled our order dated 11.02.2026, these appeals may be posted for hearing after the judgment of the nine Judge Constitution Bench is delivered."</p><p>Before The High Court</p><p>A batch of writ petitions before the High Court challenged the constitutional validity of the Act and certain notifications issued under it. On September 9, 2005, a Single Judge upheld the Act.</p><p>On appeal before the Division Bench, the appellants contended that exclusion of maths and denomination temples under Section 1(4), and exclusion of Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs under Section 2(16), amounted to hostile discrimination under Article 14. They argued that earlier regional enactments had applied to maths and to institutions of Jains and Sikhs, and that the State had failed to justify their exclusion while claiming to enact a uniform law.</p><p>The Division Bench of the High Court held that the exclusion of maths and denomination temples lacked justification and defeated the stated objective of uniform legislation.</p><p>The court also held that exclusion of Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs from the definition of “Hindu” was discriminatory, particularly since earlier enactments had governed their institutions. It found that the State had not placed material to justify the classification.</p><p>Relevance Of Sabarimala Reference To Present Case</p><p>The bench noted that the present case embodies legal questions similar to those addressed in the ongoing reference.</p><p>T
Loading page, please wait…