NEW YORK, NEW YORK, September 23, 2004: A federal court ruled against the board of the Hindu Temple Society of North America in Flushing, concluding that the state court did have authority to restructure the temple’s governing body. Judge Raymond Dearie issued the decision late last Wednesday night, two weeks later than originally anticipated. What began as an internal dispute between worshippers at the Hindu Temple Society, one of the oldest Hindu religious organization in the country, turned into a federal case this summer, quite literally, after several bitter rounds in state and appellate courts.
The Hindu Temple Society and a dissident group within the membership have been embroiled in a power struggle over the temple’s financial, administrative and religious decisions for the last three years. In 2001, as the temple was expanding its real estate holdings to accommodate worshippers, six dissident members of the society sued the board to have more of a say in the decisions of the organization, both financial and religious. After losing the original petition, the dissidents had the ruling overturned in appeals court. In November, 2003, New York State Judge Joseph Golia appointed Long Island lawyer Anthony Piacentini to oversee a restructuring of the temple, including a democratic process for electing the board.
At that point, current temple President Dr. Uma Mysorekar took her case to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Washington, D.C. and pleaded for help. “I literally begged them to take the case,” Dr. Mysorekar said. Her fear was that with an outsider mandating elections, anyone off the street would be able to declare himself a Hindu and vote on decisions regarding the future of the temple. One person could get 20 non-Hindus to sign up and make a donation of $3, and begin voting by proxy, she said. “They have no respect for the faith and no respect for the people of the faith,” she said. Not only had the temple been operating under a self-perpetuating board since its founding, she argued, but the people petitioning for changes to the board hardly ever came to temple services.
The Becket Fund, a non-profit legal organization that argues on behalf of various religious institutions, decided to take on the case, arguing that it is unconstitutional for a state court to tell a religious organization how to run its affairs. In an unprecedented move, the fund decided to sue the state court in federal court. “It’s a violation of religious freedom to have a state actor tell the temple how its internal structures should be run. It’s a violation of First Amendment rights,” said Kelly Jane Torrance, a spokesperson for the Becket Fund. “This could only happen to a small religion,” agreed Eric Rassbach, counsel for the Becket Fund. The court would never restructure a Catholic church board and set down rules for electing an archbishop, he continued.
The temple’s dissidents don’t see it this way. Krishnan Chittur, the original attorney for the petitioners in state court, said the Hindu Center has been functioning in “utmost secrecy,” without allowing anyone to see the books or have a say in operating decisions. “It is not one person’s private fiefdom,” Chittur said referring to Mysorekar’s presidency. Decisions the temple’s board and president make concerning its considerable budget must be accountable to the membership, he continued. In state court, the rulings have been complicated, including a disputed interpretation of the original by-laws that the temple was chartered under when it was given tax-exempt status.
Chittur argued that the 1970 by-laws written when the temple was first started included an elected board, but have been suppressed ever since. Many Hindu institutions democratically elect their board, he said, emphasizing that this is not a religious issue. “The Becket Fund is turning this into something it’s not.” Dr. Mysorekar disagreed with this interpretation, pointing out that the 1970 bylaws were never adopted or practiced. Back then there was no building or temple, she said. “It was just a group of people.” It was seven years before the temple was built. The 1978 by-laws, which established a self-perpetuating board, are the ones which have been actually practiced for the last 30 years, she said. The Becket Fund has filed an appeal in federal court, while the temple is still appealing the appellate court’s verdict in state court. In the meantime, the restructuring and elections will continue under the supervision of Piacentini. Rassbach emphasized that the federal ruling was “completely procedural,” and that in his 20-page decision, Judge Dearie noted twice that the state should be aware of First Amendment concerns.
A daily summary of world news for Hindus and non-Hindus alike