2017 Supreme(All) 1195

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SUDHIR AGARWAL AND DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, JJ.
SWAMI VASUDEVANAND SARASWATI DISCIPLE OF SWAMI SHANTANAND SARASWATI - Appellant
Versus
JAGAT GURU SHANKARCHARYA, JYOTISHPEETH PEETHADESHWAR SRI SWAMI SWAROOPANAND SARASWATI - Respondent
(First Appeal No. 309 of 2015, decided on 22nd September, 2017)

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Sections 96, 92, 10, 151 and 35-A, Order VI, Rule 16, Order VII, Rules 1 and 14, Order VIII, Rule 1-A, Order II, Rule 7, Order XIII, Rule 5, Order XXII, Rule 3, Order XXXIX, Rule 2, Order XLI, Rule 4—General Rules Civil, 1957—Part C, Chapter III, Rules 40 to 64—Indian Succession Act, 1925—Sections 370 and 372—(Indian) Evidence Act, 1872—Section 63—Jyotirmath Shankaracharya—Installation and functioning—Dispute as to—Legal determination of—Rival claims—Installation of plaintiff-respondent as Jagatguru Shankaracharya on 7.12.1973—Alleged installation of appellant-defendant as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath on 14/15.12.1989—Plaintiff-respondent sought permanent injunction restraining defendant-appellant from being installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath and proclaimed himself as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath—Rules for requisite qualification, eligibility and procedure for installation as Shankaracharya with reference to ‘Mathamnaya’ and ‘Mahanushasan’ —Observence of—In past Guru-Shishya Parampara was followed in Jyotirmath, but due to unavoidable circumstances broken in 1833—After 165 years, installation of Shankaracharya was made by selection of a suitable person by Manishigans and by not following Guru-Shishya Parampara in 1941—After demise of such appointed Shankaracharya in the year 1953, on the basis of his Will dated 18.12.1952, Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati was installed as Shankaracharya on 12.6.1953—Issue regarding valid installation of Swami Shantanand Saraswati in the seat of Shankaracharya and that he was qualified for such installation attained finality and would operate as res judicata—Materials brought on record to show that ceremony was held for installation of plaintiff-respondent in the seat of Shankaracharya on 7.12.1973, but his installation is invalid—Defendant-appellant never attained Sanyashood and never lived life of a Sanyasi, since he continued in service of an Educational Institution receiving grant-in-aid from State Government and salary paid to till 13.11.1989—Since appellant was disqualified to be appointed as Shankaracharya his installation as Shankaracharya held illegal, invalid and confers no right to function as Sankaracharya—However, injunction granted by Court below restraining appellant from discharging functions as Shankaracharya, upheld—Impugned judgment modified accordingly—Directions issued. [Paras 388 to 748]

       (B) Shankaracharya—Valid installation of—Requisites Qualification—For such appointment, one must in view of eligibility provided in Mathamanya and Mahanushasan, should be (i) a Dandi Sanyasi; (ii) must have good knowledge of Sanskrit; (iii) must well versed in Vedas, Upnishads, Brahmanas, Puranas, Vedangas etc.; and (iv) must be a Brahmin. [Paras 745]

       (C) Jagadguru Shankaracharya—Office of—Title “Jagadguru Shankaracharya” have a specific status among Hindus following Sanatan Dharma—Only four Maths propounded by Adi Shankaracharya, i.e., Jyotirmath, Sharda Math; Shringeri Math and Goverdhan Math—No other person is entitled to use aforesaid title and such use by any other person is wholly unauthorized—Directions issued. [Para 745]

       (D) Constitution of India, 1950—Article 13—Shankaracharya—Succession and installation of—Scope—Though an individual is installed as ‘Shankaracharya’ but by its very nature it is a status or position in trust, faith and belief of followers of Hindu Sanatan Dharma and not in connection of private right—Position of Shankaracharya is a Mission and property attached with the office is for accomplishment of such Mission—Succession of Shankaracharya will be governed by customs and traditions within the definition of law under Article 13 of the Constitution—And cannot be varied by certain individuals or group of individuals on their own. [Paras 173 to 223]

       (E) Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 25 and 26—Mutt—Concept of—Religious denomination—Mutt not a temple—Religious institutions such as a “Muth” is treated a “juristic entity” with a legal personality capable of holding and acquiring property. [Paras 224 to 320]

       (F) Mathamnaya—Mahanushasan —Instructions contained in—Status of—"Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan" one books containing commands of Adi Shankaracharya, governing four Peethas established by him—Instructions therein satisfy the nature of customs or usages having force of law to govern selection, appointment, removal of Shankaracharya.

       [Paras 322 to 342]