Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. Maheshwari, Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.
Arjun Dass – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8268 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 38500 of 2025)
Decided On : 29-05-2026
Key Points: - The judgment analyzes fairness and natural justice requirements in removal proceedings of a Mathadhipathi under the Act, including audi alteram partem and supply of relevant documents. (!) (!) (!) (!) - It holds that the Dharmika Parishad’s process can be vitiated by pre-determined charges and biased or non-independent enquiry, suggesting a de novo or independent mechanism may be required. (!) (!) (!) (!) - It provides the Court’s direction for a one-man independent enquiry committee to conduct fresh enquiry with specific procedural safeguards and timelines, including composition and procedural steps. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - It emphasizes that service of charge memo and documents must be proper (not by affixation on a door in possession of respondents) and that actual supply of documents to the charged person is essential for a fair defence. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - It outlines interim administrative arrangements and an Administrative Committee to assist the Appellant during the fresh enquiry. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background of the challenged removal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural fairness, bias, and document disclosure. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 3. essential requirements of the audi alteram partem rule in quasi-judicial proceedings. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. application of the bias principle and necessity of independent enquiry bodies. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 5. invocation of article 142 to fill procedural gaps and ensure institutional integrity. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 6. the unique status of mathadhipati blending religious office and secular management. (Para 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 7. final directions establishing a one-man enquiry committee and administrative oversight. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
JUDGMENT :
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. This Appeal has been preferred assailing the final judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) dated 09.05.2025 in CMA No. 538 of 2023, whereby order dated 24.11.2023 of the Dharmika Parishad, Endowments Department, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter, Dharmika Parishad’), G.O.Ms. No. 581 of 2023 dated 08.12.2023 under section 51(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter, ‘1987 Act’) by the Revenue (Endowments-II) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, as well as order dated 19.01.2024 were affirmed by the High Court.
3. In the present Appeal, the Appellant is the incumbent Mathadhipathi1[Also known as Mahant] of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter, ‘Mutt’), who is aggrieved by his removal from the post of Mathadhipathi of the Mutt as well as subsequent appointment of one Shri Om Prakash as interim Mahant or Fit Person. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Andhra Pradesh and Respondent No. 2 is the Dharmik Parishad. Respondent Nos. 3-5 are the Commissioner of Endowments, Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments and the Mutt, respectively, whose action has been challenged.
FACTUAL BACKDROP
4. The fact of the present Appeal finds its inception back in the year 1970. As per the Appellant, he has been associated with the Mutt since the year 1970. The Appellant was a disciple of his Guru, Sri Devender Dassji Varu, the then Mathadhipati. In the year 1975, he was appointed as Pujari. With time, he rose through the ranks, and was appointed as Adhikari in 1985, and then Interim Mahant in the year 1990.
Appointment as Mahant and related Proceedings
5. The Akhil Bharatiya Sri Panch Digambar Ani Akhada, Nasik (hereinafter, ‘Akhada Panchayat’), which is the apex organization of Hindu Sants, Sadhus and Mahants, in its meeting held on 01.11.1999 confirmed the Appellant as the only surviving disciple of his guru and being fully qualified and eligible, therefore, appointed as the permanent Mahant of the Mutt vide the order passed by Respondent No. 3 on 06.07.2000 (hereinafter, ‘Appointment Order’) under Section 53(1) of the 1987 Act.
6. On 08.10.2000, the Akhada Panchayat met on the occasion of the Pattabhishekam of the Appellant and declared him as the 21st Mahant of the Mutt.
7. It is borne from the records that in the year 2002, soon after his appointment, the Appellant filed W.P. No. 4326 of 2002 in which it was prayed that the endowments department be made to handover the secular affairs of the Mutt to him as certain government officers continued to be in-charge of the Mutt property even after his appointment. Since this writ petition filed by the Appellant was pending, the Endowments department set-aside the Appointment of Mathadhipathi vide order dated 10.07.2003 in revision proceedings initiated suo motu. Being dissatisfied of the setting aside of the Appointment Order, the Appellant filed W.P. No. 14856 of 2003 before the High Court. Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed both the wr
Administrative authority must follow due process and principles of natural justice in disciplinary actions under the applicable statutes, ensuring decisions are not arbitrary or colorable.
The provisions of Sections 50 to 55 of the Act regulate the administration of maths without violating the rights to religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The requirement of a unanimous resolution by all members of the Dharmika Parishad under Rule 23 of the Dharmika Parishad Rules is mandatory, and the absence of such a resolution invalidates the resol....
The Endowment Commissioner's appointment of a Fit Person to administer a religious institution was found illegal, undermining the fundamental right to manage religious affairs.
The appointment of a 'Fit Person' for managing the Mutt was not justified due to the absence of a temporary vacancy, emphasizing the importance of recognizing legitimate claims for succession under r....
Adherence to due process and principles of natural justice in inquiry is key for lawful removal under the Waqf Act.
In disciplinary actions, adherence to procedural fairness and opportunity for defense is paramount; failure renders actions arbitrary.
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
