SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1954 Supreme(SC) 44

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
16th March, 1954.
M.C. MAHAJAN, C.J.I., B.K. MUKHERJEA, S.R. DAS, BOSE, GHULAM HASAN, BHAGWATI AND VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, Appellant
Versus
Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt - Respondent.
The State of Travancore -Cochin, Intervener.
Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1953.
Advocates appeared
 Mr. V. K. T. Chari, Advocate General of Madras (Mr. R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate, with him), instructed by Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Agent, for Appellant; Messrs, B. Somayya and C. R., Pattabhi Raman, Senior Advocates (Messrs. T. Krishna Rao and M. S. K. Sastri, Advocates with them), for respondent; Mr. T. N. Subramania Iyer, Advocate General of Travancore-Cochin (Messrs. T. R. Balakrishna Iyer and Sardar Bahadur, Advocates, with him), for Intervener.

Advocates:
B.SOMALAYA, C.R.Pattabhi raman, M.S.K.Shastri, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, SARDAR BAHADUR SAHARYA, T.N.RAO, T.N.SUBRAMANIA IYER, T.R.BALAKRISHNA AIYAR, V.K.T.Chari

Headnote:WHAT CEREMONIES ARE ESSENTIAL PART OF RELIGION—ART. 25 PROTECTS RELIGIOUS PRACTICES AS WELL—NO OUTSIDE AUTHORITY CAN INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION WHAT RITES AND CEREMONIES ARE ESSENTIALS TO TENETS OF RELIGION - RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION IN ARTICLE 26 – WORD “DENOMINATION” EXPLAINED - ARTICLE 26 COVERS RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR ASPECTS—BUT BOTH ARE RESTRICTED BY PUBLIC ORDER, MORALITY AND HEALTH -SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, FEES AND TAXES ARE THREE DIFFERENT FORMS OF MANIFESTATION OF TAXING POWER OF STATE - COMPULSION OR COERCIVENESS IS PRESENT IN ALL KINDS OF IMPOSITION IN DIFFERENT DEGREES AND IS NOT ABSENT IN FEES

       -right of “Mathadhipat” to perform duties of a religious teaching – Held Act cannot interfere with it.

       -the word “is defined in Oxford Dictionary to mean a collection of individuals classes together under the same name a religious sect or body having a common faith and organisation and designated by a distinctive name”. It includes also a section thereof, the Math, or spiritual fraternity represented by it.

       -held, one part i.e., religious part of Article in clauses (a) & (b) deals with right of religious denomination to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes. The second part i.e., secular part of the Article in clauses (c) & (d) deal with right of such denomination to own and acquire and administer such property according to law. All four rights are subject to public order, morality and health.

       

Judgment

B. K. MUKHERJEA, J. : This appeal is directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 3-12-1951, by which the learned Judges allowed a petition, presented by the respondent under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and directed a writ of prohibition to issue in his favour prohibiting the appellant from proceeding with the settlement of a scheme in connection with a Math, known as the Shirur Math, of which the petitioner happens to be the head or superior. It may be stated at the outset that the petition was filed at a time when the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Act 2 of 1927) was in force and the writ was prayed for against the Hindu Religious Endowments Board constituted under that Act, which was the predecessor in authority of the present appellant and had initiated proceedings or settlement of a scheme against the petitioner under S. 61 of the said Act.

2. The petition was directed to be heard along with two other petitions of a similar nature relating to the temple at Chidambaram in the district of South Arcot and questions were raised in all of them regarding the validity of Madras Act 2 of 1927 hereinafter referred to as the Earlier Act. While the petitions were still pending the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the New Act) was passed by the Madras Legislature and came into force on 27-8-1951. In view of the earlier Act being replaced by the new one, leave was given to all the petitioners to amend their petitions and challenge the validity of the New Act as well.

Under S. 103 of the New Act, notification orders and acts under the Earlier Act are to be treated as notifications, orders and acts issued made or done by the appropriate authority under the corresponding provisions of the New Act, and in accordance with this provision, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, who takes the place of the President, Hindu Religious Endowments Board under the Earlier Act, was added as a party to the proceedings.

3. So far as the present appeal is concerned, the material facts may be shortly narrated as follows ; The Math, known as Shirur Math, of which the petitioner is the superior or Mathadhipati, is one of the eight Maths situated at Udipi in the district of South Kanara and they are reputed to have been founded by Shri Madhvacharya, the well-known exponent of dualistic theism in the Hindu Religious. Besides these eight Maths, each one of which is presided over by a Sanyasi or Swami, there exists another ancient religious institution at Udipi, known as Shri Krishna Devara Maths, also established by Madhvacharya which is supposed to contain an image of God Krishna originally made by Arjun and miraculously obtained from a vessel wrecked at the coast of Tulava.

There is no Mathadhipati in the Shri Krishna Math and its affairs are managed by the superiors of the other eight Maths by turns and the custom is that the Swami of each of these eight Maths presides over the Shri Krishna Math in turn for a period of two years in every sixteen years. The appointed time of change in the head ship of the Shri Krishna Math is the occasion of a great festival, known Pariyayam , when a vast concourse of devotees gather at Udipi from all parts of Southern India, and an ancient usage imposes a duty upon the Mathadhipati to feed every Brahmin that comes to the place at that time.

4. The petitioner was installed as Mathadhipati in the years 1919, when he was still a minor, and he assumed management after coming of age some time in 1926. At that time the Math was heavily in debt. Between 1926 and 1930 the Swami succeeded in clearing off a large portion of debt. In 1931, however, came the turn of his taking over the management of the Shri Krishna Math and he had to incur debts to meet the heavy expenditure attendant on the Pariyayam ceremonies. The financial position improved to some extent during the years that followed, but troubles against arose in 194























































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top