Citing the principle of the separation of religion and state, attorneys for the trustees of the Ganesha Temple in Flushing asked a federal judge on Aug. 26 to place an injunction on a state Supreme Court order that asks the temple to conduct elections and have proper audits.

Hearing the three sides of the argument –– the temple’s, the state Supreme Court’s, and of individual temple devotees who questioned the way the oldest Hindu temple in North America was being run –– the judge, Justice Raymond J. Dearie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, said he would study the issues at stake, which he described as important, for a week before arriving at an opinion, let alone passing an order. He did not interfere with the Supreme Court order summoning the trustees for a contempt hearing on Sept. 1.

Roman Storzer, director of litigation of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, had asked Justice Dearie to issue an injunction barring the New York State Supreme Court Judge Joseph J. Golia and his appointed referee, Anthony J. Piacentini, from engaging in further activity that would jeopardize the rights and autonomy of the Hindu Temple Society of North America, of Flushing, Queens, and its devotees.

In their suit, Storzer had named the Supreme Court and Judge Golia among the defendants.

The Becket Fund being an international, interfaith, public interest law firm that over 10 years has represented numerous religious denominations –– including Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Native Americans and Sikhs –– in a variety of cases involving constitutional, federal, and state issues. There was thus great interest in their stepping into the Flushing Hindu Temple case.

So far only a local and community issue in Queens, the Becket Fund intervention shot the Ganesha Temple case into a constitutional issue and raised the national profile of the case. Court No. 9 of the Federal court at 225 Cadman Plaza East in Brooklyn was packed with Indian Americans, some of them with sandalwood and ash marks on their foreheads, many of the women in saris, eliciting curious glances from other visitors to the federal court.

The mainstream New York press was also represented. Amy Veld appeared for the State Supreme Court. Veld argued that the federal court could not interfere in the state court proceedings because the state proceedings afforded plaintiffs an adequate opportunity for raising their claims. They could not relitigate the issue in federal court just because they didn’t like the state court’s decision.

So also, the federal court could not review New York state courts’ application of New York law to plaintiffs. These decisions were entitled to be respected under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Caretakers’ arguments had been repeatedly rejected by the State Courts, which decision must be respected; otherwise, there will never be an end to any litigation.

Judge Dearie observed that the First Amendment rights of thousands of others who were not before the Court were also involved. Veld pointed out that if the handful of plaintiffs here were to be granted an order to protect their religious rights, other non-parties could sue seriatim to seek protection of their rights in turn.

This would lead to endless litigation, whereby the current Caretakers –– who were “illegitimate” with “no legal right to their offices’ –– would continue in office perpetually while all the cases made their way through the courts. Storzer, who appeared for the plaintiffs, had no answer to this query. Instead, he simply responded that his clients had “sincere religious beliefs” that elections were improper under Hindu religion.

Krishnan S. Chittur, the principal of Chittur & Associates, attorneys for defendants Sambasiva Rao Venigalla, Kattinger V. Rao, Anand Mohan, Venkaiah Dama, Nehru E. Cherukupalli, and Vasantrai M. Gandhi (the “individual defendants”), said in his affirmation: “The First Amendment does not prohibit a religious organization from having anmembership or from holding elections. The Hindu Temple Society of North America, Inc.’s (“Temple’s” or “Society’s”) own bylaws expressly provide for membership “irrespective of color, race, religion, sex, or nationality.” 1970 Bylaws, Art. III(1). That’s what the state courts are enforcing.”

He also reminded the court that a contempt hearing had been set, at which Justice Dearie made clear that he had no intention of interfering with state Supreme Court process.

Both Storzer and Chittur agreed only one point: Dearie’s verdict on the motion by the Becket Fund would have lasting historical importance.