2005 Supreme(SC) 677

2005(4) Supreme 535
Supreme Court of India
(From Kerala High Court)
H.K. Sema & S.B. Sinha, JJ.
M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair & Anr. —Appellants
versus
State of Kerala & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6675 of 1999
With
Civil Appeal No. 6674 of 1999
Decided on 20-4-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : M.K.S. Menon, A.D. Sikri, A. Raghunath, Advo­cates.
For the Respondents : T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Advocate, Ms. G. Indira, K.R. Sasiprabhu, G. Prakash, C.N. Sree Kumar, Mrs. M.L. Shyjatha, M.P. Vinod and Ramesh Babu M.R., Advocates.

Important point
A statute must be read in such a manner which would make it workable.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India—Articles 25 and 26—Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978—Section 4—Administration of Guruvayoor Devaswom—Appel­lants filed writ petition for declaration that Hindus in the Council of Ministers of the Leftist Democratic Front have no manner of authori­ty to nominate Members to the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee—It was alleged that the Hindu members of the then Council of Ministers, respondents, did not satisfy the requirements having regard to their political affiliation—Whether Hindu Ministers in the Council of Ministers should have faith in God and Temple worship while nominating the members to the Managing Committee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom under Section 4 of the Act—Whether Hindu Ministers who are not believers in God and Temple Worship can, by reason of their not having faith in Hindu God and Temple worship, are disqualified from nominating members of the Managing Committee—(No).

       Held : The management or administration of a temple partakes to a secular character as opposed to the religious aspect of the matter. The 1978 Act segregates the religious matters with secular matters. So far as, religious matters are concerned, the same have entirely been left in the hands of the ‘Thanthri’. He is the alter ego of the deity. He gives mool mantra to the priests. He holds a special status. He pre­scribes the rituals. He is the only person who can touch the deity and enter the sanctum sanctorum. He is the final authority in religious matters wherefor a legal fiction has been created in Section 35 of the Act in terms whereof the Committee or the Commissioner or the Govern­ment is expressly prohibited from interfering with the religious or spiritual matters pertaining to Devaswom. His decision on all reli­gious, spiritual, ritual or ceremonial matters pertaining to Devaswom is final unless the same violates any provision contained in any law for the time being in force. The impugned provisions of the Act must be construed having regard to the said factor in mind. By reason of Section 4(1) of the 1978 Act, the Committee will consist of nine members. The nomination of one person from the Council of Ministers as a representative of the employees of the Devaswom and five persons, one of whom shall be a member of a Scheduled Caste, are required to be nominated by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers from amongst the persons having interest in the temple. The area within which such nomination can be made by the Hindus amongst the Council of Minister is, thus, limited. (Para 21)

       The legislature was also well aware of the conglomeration/diversi­ty of thought that prevailed in the Hindu religion but it did not choose to limit ‘Hindus’ to the category propounded by the appellants - namely those who believe in temple worship. There is no absurdity or ambiguity which compels a departure from the plain language and to read section 4 as meaning something more than what is expressed, and, thus there is no reason to construe the expression ‘Hindu’ in the manner sought to be done by the Appellants. To debar all ‘Hindu’ Ministers of leftist Government, from nominating members to the Managing Committee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom will lead to stalemate in the Management of the Devaswom. (Para 25)

       The only ground, which weighed with the Bench declaring Section 4(1) of the 1978 as unconstitutional, is confirmation of naked and arbitrary power upon the Government without any safeguard being pro­vided for ensuring that the Committee would be a body representing the denomination. The 1978 Act was, as noticed hereinbefore, enacted to overcome the same. The composition of the body which would have the power of nomination in terms of Sections 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) would consist of the Hindu Ministers professing Hindu religion only. While making such nominations, they are statutorily bound to nominate such persons who would fulfill the criteria laid down therein. Section 4, therefore, lays down guidelines for ensuring that the Committee would be a body representing the denomination. From its provisions it is clear that the Act has ensured that only persons who believe in temple worship are to be in the management of the temple. The Act has further ensured that none except the Thanthri gets any voice in the spiritual administration of the temple and that his voice alone will prevail in such matters. The practice of religion by the denomination including customs, practices and rituals is, therefore, preserved in its entirety and there is no tampering there­with in any manner whatsoever. (Paras 27 and 28)

       It is not clear how vesting of such a right on the Hindus in the Council of Ministers can effect their denominational rights when the members of the Managing Committee, the Commissioner and the Adminis­trator have all got to be believers in temple worship. To insist on such a qualification in the electorate will be as bad saying that when the law relating to a temple is under consideration in the legisla­ture, only Hindu legislators can vote and they must further be quali­fied as believers in temple worship. (Para 29)

       The freedom guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution is not an unconditional one. A distinction exists between the matters of religion, on the one hand, and holding and management of properties by religious institutions, on the other. What is necessary to be consid­ered for determining the issue is as to whether by reason of the impugned Act the administration of the institution had been taken from the hands of the religious denomination and vested in another body. If the answer to the said question is rendered in the negative, attack to the constitutionality of the Act would not survive. Furthermore, it is permissible for a legislature to take over the management of the temple from the control of a person and vest the same in a Committee of which he would remain the Chairman. (Paras 34 and 35)

       It is also now trite that although State cannot interfere with the freedom of a ­person to profess, practise and propagate his religion, the secular matters connected therewith can be the subject matter of control by the State. The management of the temple primarily is a secular act. The temple authority controls the activities of various servants of the temple. It manages several institutions including educational institutions pertaining to it. The disciplinary power over the servants of the temple, including the priest may vest in a commit­tee. The payment of remuneration to the temple servants was also not a religious act but was of purely secular in nature. (Para 36)

       The crucial question may now be addressed whether the vesting of power in the “Hindus” in the Council of Ministers to nominate the members of the Managing Committee could be held to violate Articles 25 and 26. The temple is visited by millions every year. Apart from proper management of the funds flowing from these devotees, the Devas­wom also owns other properties, runs a college, a guest house, choul­tries etc., all of which require efficient and prompt management. This is quiet apart from the spiritual management dealing with religious side which is under the sole control management and guidance of the Thanthri. It is the secular aspect of the management that is vested in the Management Committee. (Para 46)

       (ii) Constitution of India—Articles 25 and 26—Right to religion—Freedom to manage religious affairs—Scope—Word ‘Hindu’—Concept of—Management of temple being a secular act—Al­though State cannot interfere with the freedom of a person to profess, practise and propagate his religion, secular matters connected there­with can be the subject matter of control by the State.

       Held : Article 25 guarantees that every person in India shall have the freedom of conscience and shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate religion subject to the restrictions imposed by the State on the following grounds, viz.:

       (i) Public order, morality and health;

       (ii) other provisions of the Constitution;

       (iii) regulation of non-religious activity associated with religious practice;

       (iv) social welfare and reform; and

       (v) throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes of Hindus.

       Secularism :

       India is a secular country. Secularism has been inserted in the Preamble by reason of the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. The object of inserting the said word was to spell out expressly the high ideas of secularism and the integrity of the nation on the ground that these institutions are subjected to considerable stresses and strains and vested interests have been trying to promote their selfish ends to the great detriment of the public good. (Paras 17 and 18)

       It is now well-settled.

       (i) The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a theocratic State.

       (ii) The Constitution is not only prohibited to establish any religion of its own but is also prohibited to identify itself with or favouring any particular religion.

       (iii) The secularism under the Indian Constitution does not mean constitution of an atheist society but it merely means equal status of all religions without any preference in favour of or dis­crimination against any one of them. (Para 20)

       The word ‘Hindu’ is not defined. A Hindu admittedly may or may not be a person professing Hindu religion or a believer in temple worship. A Hindu has a right to choose his own method of worship. He may or may not visit a temple. He may have a political compulsion not to openly proclaim that he believes in temple worship but if the submission of the Appellants is accepted in a given situation, the 1978 Act itself would be rendered unworkable. Idol worships, rituals and ceremonials may not be practised by a person although he may profess Hindu reli­gion.­ (Para 22)