Back
1997(8) Supreme 344
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Orissa High Court)
J.S. Verma, CJI., Suhas C. Sen, S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Sri Jagannath Temple Puri Management Committee represented through its Administrator & Anr. etc. -Appellants
versus
Chintamani Khuntia & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3978 of 1995
With
Civil Appeal No. 3979 of 1995
Decided on 17-9-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the appearing Parties, B. Sen, Kapil Sibal, K. Madhava Reddy, V.A. Mohta, Sr. Advocates, K.N. Tripathy, J. Das, P.N. Misra, S. Misra, R.M. Patnaik, A. Mohapatra, Ms. Niti Dikshit, Ms. Kirti Misra, Advocates.
Held that although the State cannot interfere with freedom of a person to profess, practise and propagate his religion, the State, however, can control the secular matters connected with religion. All the activities in or connected with a temple are not religion activities. The management of a temple or maintenance of discipline and order inside the temple can be controlled by the State. If any law is passed for taking over the management of a temple it cannot be struck down as violative of Article 25 or Article 26 of the Constitution. The management of the temple is a secular act. The temple authority may also control the activities of various servants of the temple. The disciplinary power over the servants of the temple, including the priests, may be given to the Temple Committee appointed by the State. The Temple Committee can decide the quantum and manner of payment of remuneration to the servants. Merely because a system of payment is prevalent for a number of years, is no ground for holding that such system must continue for all times. The payment of remuneration to the temple servants was not a religious act but was of purely secular nature. (Para 28)
Further held; sub-clause (2) of Article 25 of the Constitution has specifically reserved the right of the State for making any law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice . If there is any financial or economic activity connected with religious practice, the State can make law regulating such activities even though the activity may be associated with religious practice. In the instant case, we are of the view that the various duties assigned to the Sevaks are nothing but secular activities, whether associated with religious practice or not. Moreover, the State Legislature has, in any event, power to frame laws for regulating collection and utilisation of the offerings of monies made inside the temple by the devotees. (Para 26)
(ii) Constitution of India-Arts. 25 & 26-Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 as amended w.e.f. 3.5.1983-Amended provisions of Sections 28-B and 28-C-Validity of-Installation of Hundis for collection of offerings made by devotees inside Jagannath Temple at Puri -Challenged as violative of religious rights of the Sevaks of the Temple -Whether right of the Sevaks to get a share of the Veta and Pindika is a religious right?-(No)-It is a secular right-Manner of collecting and getting a share of the offerings-Not a religious rite of the temple-Section 28-B of the Act cannot be struck down as violative of religious or property rights of Sevaks-It was open to the State to set up Foundation Fund out of donations-Sub-section (9) of Section 28-C was validly enacted.
Held that the installation of the Hundis for collection of offerings made by the devotees inside the Jagannath Temple at Puri did not violate the religious rights of the Sevaks of the Temple in any manner even though the Sevaks were denied any share out of the offerings made in the Hundis. Section 28-B of the Act cannot be struck down as violative of religious or property rights of the Sevaks. We are also of the view that it was open to the State to set up the Foundation Fund out of donations exceeding five hundred rupees made to the temple. The Sevaks could not claim any share out of the donations or contributions made to the Foundation Fund as of right. Sub-section (9) of Section 28-C was validly enacted. We hold that the amended Section 28-B and sub-section (9) of Section 28-C of Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 do not contravene the provisions of Articles 25(1), 26 or 300-A of the Constitution of India in any manner. (Paras 29 to 31)
(iii) Constitution of India-Arts. 25(1), 26, 300A-Jagannath Temple Act, 1954-Sections 28-B and 28-C-Validity of-Held, provisions do not contravene provisions of Articles 25(1), 26 or 300A-Sevaks cannot be said to be professing, practising or propagating religion by acts of collection of money-There cannot be any question of deprivation of any right to property of Sevaks in the facts of this case.
Held : The offerings that are made to the deities are not the properties of the Sevaks. The Sevaks are given a share in these offerings as remuneration for guarding and collecting the offerings. They do not have to discharge these duties in regard to the monies deposited in the Hundis. They are not entitled to any share in these monies as of right. There cannot be any question of deprivation of any right to property of the Sevaks in the facts of this case. Merely because by mistake some monies were paid to Dwaitatapatis as compensation will not confer any right on the Sevaks to get any such compensation. No right can be founded on a mistake committed by the Temple Committee. (Para 22)
JUDGMENT
Sen, J.-The point that falls for consideration in this case is whether the right of the temple attendants to get a portion of the offerings made to the deity in a temple is a religious right or the manner of collecting and getting a share of the offerings is a religious rite of the temple. The answer must be in the negative in both the cases. Collection and distribution of monies start after the devotees had done their worship and made their offerings to the deity. Offerings of fruit, flower and money are made to the deity by the devotees. This is done as a token of devotion of the pilgrims. But after the worship by the devotees is over, sweeping, collection and distribution of a portion of offerings to the temple staff are not parts of any religious exercise. The manner of collection and distribution of a portion of the offerings among the temple staff may have a history of long usage but such usage cannot be part of religious practice or a religious right.
2. This case has been brought by a group of temple attendants called "Sevaks" contending that they are entitled to a share out of the collections of the offerings made by the devotees inside the Jagannath Temple at Puri. They are traditionally entitled to the offerings made by the devotees (Veta and Pindika). This traditional method of collection of Veta Pindika and also of getting a portion of the same canot be interfered with because that will amount to violation of guarantee of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
3. Collection and distribution of money even though given as offerings to the deity cannot be a religious practice. The offerings whether of money, fruits, flowers or any other thing are given to the deity. It has been said in the Gita that "whoever offers leaf, flower, fruit or water to Me with devotion I accept that". The religious practice ends with these offerings. Collection and distribution of these offerings or retention of a portion of the offerings for maintenance and upkeep of the temple are secular activities. These activities belong to the domain of management and administration of the temple. We have to examine this case bearing this basic principle in mind. The offerings made inside the Temple are known as Veta and Pindika. Veta means the offerings that are given to Lord Jagannath at specified places in the Temple. Pindika means offerings that are given on the pedestal of the deities.
4. The case made out on behalf of the respondents is that their duties and rights are all contained in the Record of Rights of the Temple and among their rights is the right to get one half of the garland offered to the deity. They take all offerings like fruits, betel, betelnuts, coconuts, sweets, mirrors and other things. They stand near the Inner three Bada holding jugs (Gadu). Whatever Veta and Pindika is thrown they collect them and keep in the Gadu. There is an activity called "Pochha" which means that whatever Veta Pindika is thrown at the throne, the Mekaps collect them by stretching their hands to the extent they reach and put the amounts so collected in the Gadu. According to the Sanad (grant), they have to clean the throne keeping their feet at the edge of the throne but now for many days, they are cleaning it standing at the bottom of the throne. Whatever offerings fall down from the throne, they collect from the floor and put in the Gadu. Similarly, if anything falls from the walls, they collect and place it in the Gadu. All these collections made at or near the throne of the deity and various other places in the Temple are ultimately counted. Small coins are taken by them. They get one anna share in a rupee of the entire collection and the remaining Pindika income is deposited in the Temple office.
5. This practice, according to the Sevaks (Mekaps), is going on for a number of years and is recorded in the Record of Rights, and therefore, cannot be regarded as a secular activity. Their further contention is that
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
