IMPORTANT POINTS
When pleadings raise an issue, the Court has to decide the same.
When the relief sought for could be asked by anybody, question of locus standi does not arise.
When an institution is not recognised, question of its de-recognition does not arise.
The Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institution of Public Nature (Election of managing committee of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple) Rules, 2012 are valid.
Articles 25 and 26 should be read harmoniously.
Article 13(1) applies only to the pre-constitution laws including customs inconsistent with Part III of Constitution. Not to the religious customs and personal laws protected by Articles 25 and 26.
Judiciary is not State when acting on judicial side. When acting as purely administrative authority, judiciary may be State attracting writ jurisdiction.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Locus standi – Pleadings requiring adjudication of locus or status of appellants – Division Bench had to decide the issue of locus standi – No infirmity. (Para 9)
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 226 and section 25A, Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959 – Petitioners not claiming in the capacity of administrators/members of the Board of Trustees – Relief of action u/s 25A could have been granted to the petitioners in their capacity as Shebaits – Single Judge rightly not pursuing the issue of locus seriously. (Para 25)
       (c) Constitution of India – Article 226 and section 25A, Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959 – Single Judge not pursuing issue of locus on the ground that though the Debutter Board constituted in the year 1998 to which no credence or recognition was given by Deputy Commissioner to the said Board and private Respondents also disowned the Board, yet no attempt was made by either party to challenge the authority of the Debutter Board – Reasoning not acceptable – When the Board was not recognised, there was no question of de-recognition. (Para 25)
       (d) Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959 – Section 25A – Statutory committee – Scope and ambit of powers – Committee has limited role – Only to exercise control over annuity and other grants under the Act and its proper accounting – Power of verification of relevant accounts for proper maintenance of Institutions – It does not divest or adversely affect the customary powers of the Bordeories and Dolois – Statutory Committee cannot be conferred with powers to manage or oversee even only the secular aspect of management of the Institution. (Para 28)
       (e) Kamakhya Debutter Regulation, 1998 – Not a valid instrument – Has no sanction of law for depriving the Bordeori Samaj of its customary rights to elect the Dolois. (Para 31)
       (f) The Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institution of Public Nature (Election of managing committee of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple) Rules, 2012 – Rules 3 and 6 – Validity – Challenge on ground of being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Rule 3 providing for two electoral colleges – One for election to the post of ex-officio secretary, restricted to the Bordeories of the temple – The other for election of five members of the managing committee, consisting of the ‘Devotees’ – Under Rule 6 the list of electors already prepared by the Bordeories and published in connection with the election of Dolois is to be treated as electoral rolls for election of ex-officio secretary – Bordeori families customarily enjoying distinct status and monopoly in management of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya temple – Deories associated with the Nanan Devalayas or even with Maa Kamakhya Temple cannot claim equality with Bordeori. (Para 36, 37)
       (g) The Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institution of Public Nature (Election of managing committee of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple) Rules, 2012 – Rules 3 and 6 – Validity – Challenge on ground of being violative of Section 25A(b) – Expression Deories/Bordeories – Different temple institutions managed by Deories or Bordeories – Option given to State to frame Rules – State framing Rules for Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya temple only – Customarily managed by Bordeories samaj – No infirmity in confining election of ex-officio secretary to Bordeories samaj – The Rules supplement the provisions of the Act and do not run counter thereto. (Para 40)
       (h) Constitution of India – Articles 25 and 26 – Both Articles should be read harmoniously – Right to every religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion – Subject to and controllable by a law contemplated under Article 25(2)(b) – Such law cannot obliterate essential religious practices or their performances – Article 13(1) applies only to the pre-constitution laws including customs inconsistent with Part III of Constitution – Not to the religious customs and personal laws protected by Articles 25 and 26 – However, these can be curtailed only by law, made by a competent legislature to the permissible extent. (Para 56, 57, 59)
       1954 SCR 1005; 1958 SCR 895; (1986) 3 SCC 615; (1996) 2 SCC 498; (1972) 2 SCC 11 – Relied upon
       (1964) 7 SCR 756; 1962 (Suppl.) 3 SCR 724; (1986) 2 SCC 249; 1964 1 SCR 561; 1964 7 SCR 32; (1972) 2 SCC 11; (1974) 1 SCC 500; (1996) 2 SCC 498; (1996) 9 SCC 548; (1997) 4 SCC 606; (1997) 2 SCC 745; (1999) 7 SCC 666; (2002) 8 SCC 106; (2005) 11 SCC 45; (1962) 1 SCR 383 – Referred
       (i) Constitution of India – Article 12 – Definition of State – Inclusive and not exhaustive – Omission of judiciary is not conclusive – Judiciary not State when acting on judicial side – When acting as purely administrative authority they may be State attracting writ jurisdiction. (Para 60)
       (2002) 5 SCC 111; (1966) 3 SCR 744; (1989) 1 SCC 678; (2010) 4 SCC 460 – Referred
       (2010) 3 SCC 192; 1975 (Suppl.) SCC 1 – Distinguished
       Facts of the case:
       This case relates to interpretation of Section 25A of the Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959 as to its width and scope.
       Finding of the Court:
       The Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institution of Public Nature (Election of managing committee of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple) Rules, 2012 are valid.
       Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Judgment

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.

1. The Civil Appeals arise out of three writ petitions, two of the year 2000 and one of the year 2002 which were heard together and disposed of by a learned Single Judge of Guwahati High Court by a common judgment and order dated 06.08.2004. That judgment was challenged before the Division Bench through two writ appeals bearing W.A.Nos.311 and 312 of 2004 preferred by the appellants who confined the scope of the appeals only to the width and scope of Section 25A of the Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious or Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959 (for brevity referred to as ‘the Act’). Admittedly neither the State Government nor the private respondents preferred any cross appeal.

However, there was a fresh writ petition filed directly before the Division Bench bearing Writ Petition No.923/2005 preferred in the name of The Deity, Sri Sri Ma Kamakhya claimed to be represented by appellant – Riju Prasad Sarma who further described himself as the Administrator, Kamakhya Debutter. The said writ petition sought to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 25A of the Act. The writ appeals and the Writ Petition No.923 of 2005 were finally disposed of by a common judgment and order of the Division Bench of Guwahati High Court dated 25.10.2011 which is under challenge in the principal matter – Civil Appeal Nos.3276-3278 of 2013 filed by Sri Riju Prasad Sarma & Ors. claiming to represent The Kamakhya Debutter Board.

2. Along with the Civil Appeals three writ petitions bearing No.72, 91 and 140 of 2012 have also been heard together as connected matters because they either throw a challenge to the validity of the Section 25A of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder or to the actual election of Dolois held on 16.11.2011 on account of this Court not staying the direction of the Division Bench to hold such election governed by custom. The same dispute covered by the Civil Appeals noticed above is sought to be raised again through S.L.P.(C) Nos.18070-18072 of 2015 [CC 8089-8091/2012] which have been filed along with an application for permission to prefer the special leave petitions by those who were not parties earlier, Hiten Sarma and some others, against the same very common judgment of the Division Bench dated 25.10.2011. This judgment shall govern all the matters noticed above. For the sake of convenience the facts have been noted from the records of civil appeals except where indicated otherwise.

3. It is necessary to have a look at the nature of the three writ petitions decided by the learned single judge. But before that it will be useful to notice the background facts which led to those writ petitions. The appellants have, in one of their written submissions, furnished the introduction, it reads as follows:-

“INTRODUCTION

The present group of matters concerns the Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Devalaya, which is one of the most significant amongst the 51 Shaktipeethas. The temple and the site are referred to in the Sanskrit text “Kalikapurana” which is one of the eighteen upapurana. The Diety of Shri Shri Kamakhya is one of the most venerated Goddesses. The main Kamakhya temple and the subsidiary temples in and around the three Hills of Nilachal are collectively known under the general name of “Kamakhya”. It may be mentioned that the subsidiary temples are also known in Assames as “Nanan Devalayas”. The families of the priests of the main temple call themselves “Bordeuris”. The families of the priests of the subsidiary temples are known as “Deuris”. The head priest is called the “Doloi”. “Shebait” means and includes all the community of persons who are directly connected to the performance of any kind of duty associated with the temple complex and thus, includes the Bordeuris, Deuris and other Brahamin and non Brahmin persons directly connected to the performance of any kind of duty associated with the temple complex.

There are before this Hon’ble Court four proceedings raising diffe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 690

Cases Referred (26)