2009 Supreme(Mad) 3720

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAJA
Sabhanayagar Temple, Chidambaram, represented by its Secretary Podhu Dheekshadhars, Chidambaram
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Department of Tamil Development, Religious & Information Department, Chennai & Others
Writ Appeals Nos.181 to 183 of 2009, M.Ps Nos.1 to 4 of 2009 in WA No.181 of 2009 M.P. No.1 of 2009 in WA No.182 of 2009 & M.P. No.1 of 2009 in WA. No.183 of 2009
Decided On : 15-09-2009

Ratios:
a. Doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure and it cannot be exalted to the status of a legislative direction between the parties so as to determine the question relating to the interpretation of enactment affecting the jurisdiction of a Court finally between them.
b. When the law was altered subsequent to the decision or when a pure question of law was mistakenly interpreted against the mandatory provision of law, the decision would not operate as res judicata.
c. Right to manage the religious body is a fundamental right while the right to administer its properties is a statutory right which can be regulated by the Statute.
d. Only when a religious denomination established its temple it can claim the fundamental right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion with respect to that institution.
e. Practice of religious faith according to the tenets of Hindu religion, custom and usage stand protected by the Constitution while the secular management of the religious affairs in the temple can be regulated as per the Act.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India-Art.25, 26- T.N. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959(T.N. Act 22 of 1959) - Sec.45(1).-Right to religion-Establish and administer Temples-Mismanagement-Right to property-Hundi collections-Administration of poperties-Taking over management-Ancient properties-Temple was established by ancient king-Podu Dikshidars were managing it and also performing poojas-Allegation of non-maintenance of accounts, unauthorized alienation of properties, misappropriation of income and mismanagement of properties were reported-Authorities conducted enquiry and found the allegations true-Government ordered taking over the administration of its properties-Order was challenged by Podu Dikshidars and others also joined in the issue-Single judge dismissed writ petition and upheld the Government move-Appeal by Podu Dikshidars-Parties stood by their stands and the appellant contended that the religious rights were affected-Held, Only the persons who establish and administer the religious denomination can claim the constitutional right as guaranteed under Art.26-Taking over the administration of its properties does not amount to interference in the religious rights of the petitioner-Government can, in the interest of public temple, take over the administration of the temple properties-Appeal dismissed.

       (B) Practice and procedure-Res judicata-Pure question of law-Mistaken decision-Binding nature-When a decision would not operate as a res judicata?-Law discussed- Doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure and it cannot be exalted to the status of a legislative direction between the parties so as to determine the question relating to the interpretation of enactment affecting the jurisdiction of a Court finally between them-When the law was altered subsequent to the decision or when a pure question of law was mistakenly interpreted against the mandatory provision of law, the decision would not operate as res judicata.

       The doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure : it cannot be exalted to the status of a legislative direction between the parties so as to determine the question relating to the interpretation of enactment affecting the jurisdiction of a Court finally between them, even though no question of fact or mixed question of law and fact and relating to the right in dispute between the parties has been determined thereby. ….. A decision on an issue of law will be as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, if the cause of action of the subsequent proceeding be the same as in the previous proceeding, but not when the cause of action is different, nor when the law has since the earlier decision been altered by a competent authority, nor when the decision relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the earlier proceeding, nor when the earlier decision declares valid a transaction which is prohibited by law. Where the law is altered since the earlier decision, the earlier decision will not operate as res judicata between the same parties. …… Where, however, the question is one purely of law and it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a decision of the Court sanctioning something which is illegal, by resort to the rule of res judicata a party affected by the decision will not be precluded from challenging the validity of that order under the rule of res judicata, for a rule of procedure cannot supersede the law of the land. Para 47

       (C) Constitution of India-Art.25, 26- T.N. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959(T.N. Act 22 of 1959) - Sec.45(1).-Right to religion-Establish and administer Temples-Mismanagement-Right to property-Hundi collections-Administration of poperties-Taking over management-Ancient properties-Right to manage the religious body is a fundamental right while the right to administer its properties is a statutory right which can be regulated by the Statute.

       The right of management to a religious body is a guaranteed fundamental right, which no legislature can take away. On the other hand, as regards the administration of the properties, which a religious denomination is entitled to own and acquire, it is the right to administer such properties, but only in accordance with law, meaning thereby, the State can regulate the administration of the property of the religious denomination by means of law validly enacted. Para 51

       (D) Constitution of India-Art.25, 26- Right to religion-Interpretation of statutes-Establish and administer Temples-To be read conjunctively -Only when a religious denomination established its temple it can claim the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion with respect to that institution .

       "The phrase, "establish and maintain" cannot be separated. It shall be read conjunctively. Only when a religious denomination or a Section thereof established a religious institution, it gets the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion with respect to that institution. Para 54

       Temple is not a denominational temple and therefore, in the event of any mismanagement or financial irregularities, the State can always interfere with the mal-administration, in which event, the member of the appellant cannot complain that their rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution have been infringed by appointment of Executive Officer.

       Para 55

       (E) Constitution of India-Art.25, 26- T.N. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959(T.N. Act 22 of 1959) - Sec.45(1).-Right to religion-Establish and administer Temples-Practice of religious faith according to the tenets of Hindu religion, custom and usage stand protected by the Constitution while the secular management of the religious affairs in the temple can be regulated as per the Act.

       The practice of religious faith according to tenets of Hindu religion, custom and usage stand protected by the Act. But the secular management of the religious affairs in the temple is secular part. Para 55