1997 Supreme(SC) 482

1997(4) Supreme 388
Supreme Court of India
K. Ramaswamy, K. Venkataswami and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi & Ors. etc. -Appellants
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. __Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1013-1015 of 1987
With
C.A. No. 1016-17 of 1987
Decided on 14-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, S.S. Javali, D.V. Sehgal, Sr. Advs., L.R. Singh, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Yatish Mohan, Ms. Binu Mohla, Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Anu Mohla, Ms. Monika Gosain, A.K. Srivastava, R.B. Misra, Sunil Ambwani, Advocates.

Headnote:Religious Endowments-Uttar Pradesh Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983-Constitutionality of-Challenged-Contention that some of persons have customary and hereditary rights as archakas and Act extinguishes their rights, so is violative of Articles 25 and 26(b) and (d) of Constitution-Whether abolition of right to manage Temple as Mahant is offensive of their right to religious practice and management of Temple ?-(No)-Secular management of religious affairs in Temple is secular part-Legislature has power to interfere with and regulate proper and efficient management thereof-Whether Act infringes right of Hindus who believe in Shaiva form of worship ?-(No)-Believers of Shaiva form of worship are not a denominational sect-They are entitled to protection under Arts. 25 and 26-They are not entitled to protection, in particular, of clauses (b) and (d) of Art. 26 as a religious denomination in matter of management, administration and governance of temples-Act is not ultra vires Articles 25 and 26.

       Held : The object of the Act is only to ensure efficient and effective performance of the duties of services, conduct of worship, daily or periodical, general or special rituals services, ceremonies and other religious observances in accordance with the Hindu sastras, customs and practices by the archakas and equally to provide hygienic conditions, proper standard of cleanliness, sanitation, maintenance of morality, public order and healthy atmosphere; to provide benefit to the pilgrims and worshippers of accommodation, sanitary conditions therein, proper arrangement and facilities for worship, performance of pooja by pilgrims and worshippers. The Board, as seen, is composed of 7 officials and 8 non-officials for efficient management of the Temple. In view of the national importance of Lord Sri Visheshwar Temple and the belief and faith every Hindu has in the presiding deity Lord Shiva as well as in other deities installed therein, it is needless to reiterate that the legislative object of proper, efficient, effective and sustained management of the Temple/endowments and of the Fund of the Temple, constantly requires to be effectuated and ensured. Equally, facilities for the pilgrims and worshippers for darshan, performance of pooja, rituals, ceremonies etc. require to be constantly monitored and provided by the Executive Committee or the Chief Executive Officer and the staff under the supervision of the Board. Consequently, non-official members of the Board should, of necessity, be eminent persons having rich knowledge and experience in the management and administration of the affairs of the Temple and the performance of services, rituals or religious observances in the Temple without creating any vested interest. It would be voluntary service with religious and pious devotion, selfless service to the society as responsible member of the society without any distinction of caste, sect or sub-sect among Hindus. (Para 24)

       Further held that practice of religious faith according to tenets of Hindu religion, custom and usage stand protected by the Act. But the secular management of the religious affairs in the Temple is secular part. The legislature has power to interfere with and regulate proper and efficient management thereof. (Para 26)

       Consequently held : The denominational status has already been held to be non-existent and Articles 25 and 26 do not protect them. Various regulatory measures devised under the Act aim only at proper and better management and administration of the Temple, endowments and all matters incidental to or connected with the management thereof. The Act itself has drawn a distinction between religious affairs and secular control. Obviously, the legislature being aware of the power under Section 92, CPC etc. to frame the scheme, appears to have felt it expedient in the interest of the institution itself and has taken legislative measure to regulate it, by employing non obstante clause in relevant provisions in the Act. The legislature, therefore, having undoubted power has stepped in and made the Act as a permanent measure to prevent mismanagement and to improve hygienic and sanitary conditions prevailing in the Temple and to provide orderly facilities for worship by the pilgrims coming from every nook and corner of India and abroad as a regular stream of devotees and local worshippers. (Para 27)

       The Government kept its control only on the secular side as the Temple is one of the important Hindu Temples in the State of U.P. and in Bharat. Properties and endowments vest in the Deity, Lord Sri Vishwanath. The management of the Temple by Mahant/Panda/Archaka is not their property. The Act has merely changed the management from Pandas to the Board. Only the right of management in the Pandas has been extinguished from the appointed day and placed in the Board for better and proper management. It is not vested in the State nor the State acquired it for itself. In other words, the affairs of Lord Sri Viswanath Temple by Pandas/Mahant have become extinct and the Board has assumed the management. This entrustment of management cannot be said to constitute acquisition of the property or extinguishment of right to property. In the light of the above, there is need to give restrictive interpretation to the word "religious faith" and "religion" so as to allow the Pandas to manage the Temple both on temploral part and deny them the secular part of the management of the Temple. (Para 28)

       In view of the settled legal position that the legislature is empowered to enact the law regulating the secular aspect of the management of the Temple or the religious institution or endowment, panda/Archaka (Priest), by whatever name called, is not integral part of the religion and performs all the religious tenets or ceremonies in a Temple as servant of the Temple. They owe their existence to an appointment. (Para 30)

       The right to receive offerings from the pilgrims is incidental to the service rendered by the archaka (priest). Independent of service, there is no right to receive offerings from a pilgrim or the devotee. Therefore, the regulation of rendering service and prohibition to receive offerings, though may affect the livelihood of a pre-existing archaka, it being a regulatory measure, it is sequal or consequential to the abolition. It is not a vested right as such but is a right coupled with duty to render service. When the service on customary basis is abolished, concomitantly right to receive offerings given by the pilgrims stands extinguished and prohibited and is vested in the deity, Lord Shiva. It is not an acquisition of their right but it has only incidental and consequential effect. Equally, it is not a vested right in the individual panda/ archaka/priest de hors the service. Rights of persons in service as archakas is not affected; on the other hand, Section 22 is subject to regulation and extends the right to earn livelihood guaranteed by Article 21. (Para 31)