Subramanian Swamy vs State of Tamil Nadu

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(SC) 10

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. Chauhan & S.A. Bobde, JJ.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
And
Sabhayanagar Temple
v.
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
And
T. Sivaraman & Ors.
v.
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 10620, 10621, 10622 of 2013, W.A. (C) No. 181 of 2009
Decided On : 06 January, 2014

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R. Venkataramani, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocates, Mr. Subramonium Prasad, AAG, Dr. Subramanian Swamy (Petitioner-In-Person), Dr. Roxna S. Swamy, Mr. Ishkaran Singh Bhandari, Ms. Supriya Manan, Ms. V. Vijaylakshmi, Ms. Bindu K. Nair, Ms. Chandra Shekhar, Ms. Neelam Singh, Mr. Shodhan Babu, Ms. Pavni Poddar (for Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu), Mr. K. Parameshwar, Mr. S.R. Setia, Mr. P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, Ms. Geetha Kovilan, Mr. S. Raju, Mr. Melton, Mr. R. Sagadevan, Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Mr. A. Santha Kumaran, Ms. Vanita C. Giri, Mr. B. Balaji, Mr. Govindaramanuja Dasu (Respondent-In-Person in C.A. No. 10621 of 2013), Mr. Abhisth Kumar, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocates, with them for the appearing parties.

Headnote:Constitution of India–Article 25 & 26–Right to establish and maintain religious institutions by a "religious denomination"–undoubtedly, the object and purpose of enacting Article 26 of the Constitution is to protect the rights conferred therein on a 'religious denomination' or a section thereof–however, the rights conferred under Article 26 are subject to public order, morality and health and not subject to any other provision of Part III of the Constitution as the limitation has been prescribed by the law makers by virtue of Article 25 of the Constitution–the religious denomination' means collection of individuals having a system of belief, a common organisation; and designation of a district name–the right to administration of property by a 'religious denomination' would stand on a different footing altogether from the right to maintain its own affairs in matters of religion–in the present case, the Dikshitars, constitute a 'religious denomination' and are entitled to participate in administration of the Temple having their exclusive privilege which had been recognised and established for over several centuries–the impugned order appointing an Executive Officer for the administration of Temple set aside as it does not prescribe the duration for which it will be in force. (Paras 10, 21 & 47)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Section 11–Doctrine of Res Judicata–the literal meaning of "res" in "everything that may from an object of rights and includes an object, subject-matter or status' and "res judicata" literally means "a matter adjudged a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgments"–"Res judicata pro veritate accipitur" is the full maxim which has, over the years, shrunk to mere "res judicata", which means that res judicata is accepted for truth–the doctrine contains the rule of conclusiveness of the judgment which is based partly on the maxim of Roman jurisprudence "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" (it concerns the State that there be end to law suits) and partly on the maxium "memo debet bis vexari pro uno et eadem causa" (no man should be vexed twice over for the same cause)–even an erroneous decision on a question of law to it–the correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upoin the question whether or not it operates as res judicata–in the present case, rights of respondent no. 6 to administer the temple having already been determined by the High Court, State authorities cannot pass any order denying those rights. (Paras 23 & 36)
AIR 1954 SC 282, 1952 (1) MLJ 557, AIR 2001 SC 3015, AIR 2002 SC 1685, AIR 1974 SC 2098, AIR 2003 SC 355, AIR 2003 SC 4225, AIR 1968 SC 662, AIR 1971 SC 161, AIR 1996 SC 1414, AIR 1954 SC 388; AIR 1996 SC 1023, AIR 1949 PC 302, AIR 1953 SC 65, AIR 1953 SC 33, AIR 1916 PC 78, AIR 1960 SC 941, AIR 1961 SC 1457, AIR 2002 SC 952, AIR 2005 SC 626, (1999)5 SCC 590, AIR 1957 SC 38, AIR 1986 SC 1455, AIR 1998 SC 2046, AIR 1971 SC 1676, AIR 1968 SC 1370, AIR 1978 SC 803, AIR 2013 SC 693, AIR 2003 SC 2095, AIR 1962 SC 527, AIR 1963 SC 1083, AIR 1970 SC 1926, (2008)13 SCC 597, AIR 1976 Mad 264, AIR 1985 SC 660, (2013)8 SCC 345, (2010)13 SCC 336, AIR 1979 SC 381, AIR 2011 SC 3298, AIR 2011 SC 3470–Referred to.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. All these appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.9.2009 passed in Writ Appeal No.181 of 2009 by the High Court of Madras affirming the judgment and order dated 2.2.2009 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.18248 of 2006 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner Podhu Dikshitars to administer the Temple.

1.1. In Civil Appeal No. 10620/2013, the appellant has raised the issue of violation of the constitutional rights protected under Article 26 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Constitution) in relation to the claim by Podhu Dikshitars (Smarthi Brahmins) to administer the properties of the Temple in question dedicated to Lord Natraja. The same gains further importance as it also involves the genesis of such pre-existing rights even prior to the commencement of the Constitution and the extent of exercise of State control under the statutory provisions of The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1951) as well as the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1959).

1.2. Civil Appeal No. 10621/2013 is on behalf of Podhu Dikshitars claiming the same relief and Civil Appeal No. 10622/2013 has been filed by the appellants supporting the claim of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 10621/2013.

2. For convenience in addressing the parties and deciding the appeals, we have taken Civil Appeal No. 10620/2013 as the leading appeal. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the appeal are as under:

A. That Sri Sabhanayagar Temple at Chidambaram (hereinafter referred to as the Temple) is in existence since times immemorial and had been administered for a long time by Podhu Dikshitars (all male married members of the families of Smarthi Brahmins who claim to have been called for the establishment of the Temple in the name of Lord Natraja).

B. The State of Madras enacted the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1927), which was repealed by the Act 1951. A Notification No.G.O.Ms.894 dated 28.8.1951 notifying the Temple to be subjected to the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act 1951 was issued. The said notification enabled the Government to promulgate a Scheme for the management of the Temple.

C. In pursuance to the same, the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras (hereinafter called the Board) appointed an Executive Officer for the management of the Temple in 1951 vide order dated 28.8.1951 etc.

D. The Dikshitars, i.e. respondent no.6 and/or their predecessors in interest challenged the said orders dated 28.8.1951 and 31.8.1951 by filing Writ Petition nos. 379-380 of 1951 before the Madras High Court which were allowed vide judgment and order dated 13.12.1951 quashing the said orders, holding that the Dikshitars constituted a religious denomination and their position vis--vis the Temple was analogous to muttadhipati of a mutt; and the orders impugned therein were violative of the provisions of Article 26 of the Constitution.

E. Aggrieved, the State of Madras filed appeals before this Court, which stood dismissed vide order dated 9.2.1954 as the notification was withdrawn by the State-respondents. After the judgment in the aforesaid case as well as in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [AIR 1954 SC 282] (hereinafter referred to as Shirur Mutt Case), the Act 1951 was repealed by the Act 1959. Section 45 thereof empowers the Statutory Authorities to appoint an Executive Officer to administer the religious institutions. However, certain safeguards have been provided under various provisions including Section 107 of the Act 1959.

F. On 31.7.1987, the Commissioner of religious endowment in exercise of his power under the Act 1959 appointed an Executive Officer. Consequent thereto, the Commissioner HR&CE passed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 10

Cases Referred (38)