A political row has sharpened in Uttar Pradesh after a notice was issued to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati seeking an explanation on the use of the title Shankaracharya, prompting the Indian National Congress to accuse the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party of overreach and to question whether any government has the authority to determine religious status.The notice, issued by officials in Uttar Pradesh, asks the religious leader to clarify the basis on which he uses the Shankaracharya appellation. The communication has not alleged criminality, but its framing has triggered a wider debate over the separation of state power and religious institutions, particularly the autonomy traditionally accorded to monastic orders and spiritual lineages.
Congress leaders responded on Tuesday with a sharp critique, arguing that the state’s action sets a troubling precedent. Senior party figures asked publicly whether a chief minister or prime minister can adjudicate matters of faith or confer legitimacy on spiritual titles that have historically been determined within religious traditions. The party framed the episode as a constitutional issue rather than a personal dispute, stressing that faith-based offices operate outside the remit of executive authority.
The BJP rejected suggestions of interference, maintaining that the notice was administrative in nature and aimed at clarifying facts rather than challenging religious doctrine. Party representatives pointed to the state’s responsibility to address complaints and ensure that public representations are accurate, especially when titles carry social influence. They denied that the move amounted to an attempt to regulate faith or diminish religious freedom.
At the centre of the controversy is the Shankaracharya title, associated with a centuries-old monastic tradition tracing back to Adi Shankara. Historically, recognition within this tradition has been governed by religious councils and internal processes, not by governments. Legal scholars note that while the state can regulate secular aspects linked to religious institutions—such as property or public order—it has limited scope to rule on doctrinal questions or spiritual legitimacy.
Opposition leaders argue that the notice blurs this boundary. They contend that even an administrative query can have a chilling effect if it appears to place the state in the role of arbiter over religious titles. The Congress has urged the state to withdraw the notice and allow any disagreements within the religious community to be resolved through established ecclesiastical mechanisms.
The episode has also revived a broader political argument about the relationship between religion and governance. Critics say the BJP’s handling risks politicising faith, while supporters counter that transparency and accountability are necessary when religious figures wield public influence. The debate has resonated beyond Uttar Pradesh, with leaders from other parties and religious bodies weighing in on the implications for federalism and freedom of religion.
Legal experts point to constitutional protections that guarantee the right to profess and practise religion, alongside judicial precedents that caution against state intrusion into essential religious practices. At the same time, courts have recognised the state’s role in regulating non-religious activities associated with religious institutions. Where the current notice falls on that spectrum is likely to be contested if the matter escalates.
Within the religious community, responses have been mixed. Some leaders have defended Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati’s standing, emphasising lineage and acceptance among followers. Others have called for clarity to avoid confusion among devotees, underscoring the importance of established procedures for recognition. The diversity of views highlights the complexity of adjudicating spiritual authority in a plural society.