Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. R. DAS, C. J. I. , T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, S. J. IMAM, A. K. SARKAR AND VIVIAN BOSE, JJ.
VENKATARAMANA DEVARU - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MYSORE - Respondents
Civil 403 Of 1956
Decided On : 11/08/1957
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - FREEDOM OF RELIGION - RIGHT TO MANAGE RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS - CONFLICT BETWEEN RIGHT TO EXCLUDE NON-MEMBERS FROM TEMPLE AND RIGHT TO OPEN TEMPLE TO ALL HINDUS - ARTICLE 26(B) AND ARTICLE 25(2)(B) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION - VALIDITY OF MADRAS TEMPLE ENTRY AUTHORISATION ACT, 1947 - SCOPE OF PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 26(B) - DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS - HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS - MODIFICATIONS IN DECREE IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANTS - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The Sri Venkataramana temple at Moolky, a denominational institution founded for the benefit of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin community, challenged the validity of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, which sought to throw open the temple to all classes and sections of Hindus. The appellants, trustees of the temple, contended that their right to exclude non-members from the temple was protected under Article 26(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to manage religious affairs, while the State argued that the right to enter temples was protected under Article 25(2)(b), which allows for laws throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the temple was a denominational institution protected under Article 26(b) of the Constitution, but that the right to exclude non-members was subject to the right to open temples to all Hindus under Article 25(2)(b). The Court interpreted the two provisions harmoniously, giving effect to both rights by upholding the validity of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, while recognizing the appellants' right to exclude non-members during certain religious ceremonies and on special occasions.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sri Venkataramana temple at Moolky is a denominational institution protected under Article 26(b) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the right to exclude non-members from the temple is protected under Article 26(b) of the Constitution? 3. Whether the right to enter temples is protected under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution? 4. Whether the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, is valid in light of Articles 25(2)(b) and 26(b) of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the temple was a denominational institution founded for the benefit of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin community, and thus protected under Article 26(b) of the Constitution. 2. The Court held that the right to exclude non-members from the temple was a matter of religion protected under Article 26(b) of the Constitution. 3. The Court held that the right to enter temples was a fundamental right protected under Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution. 4. The Court held that Article 25(2)(b) prevailed over Article 26(b) in cases of conflict, and that the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, was valid in light of this.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and the application for special leave to appeal, upholding the validity of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, while recognizing the appellants' right to exclude non-members during certain religious ceremonies and on special occasions.
( 1 ) THE substantial question of law, which arises of decision in this appeal, is whether the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion guaranteed under Art. 26 (b) is subject to, and can be controlled by, a law protected by Art. 25 (2) (b), throwing open a Hindu public temple to all classes and sections of Hindus.
( 2 ) IN the District of South Kanara which formed until recently part of the State of Madras and is now comprised in the State of Mysore, there is a group of three villages, Mannampady, Bappanad and Karnad collectively known as Moolky Petah; and in the village of Mannampady, there is an ancient temple dedicated to Sri Venkataramana, renowned for its sanctity. It is this institution and its trustees, who are the appellants before us. The trustees are all of them members of a sect known as Gowda Saraswath Brahmins. It is said that the home of this community in the distant past was Kashmir, that the members thereof migrated thence to Mithila and Bihar, and finally moved southwards and settled in the region around Goa in sixty villages. They continued to retain their individuality in their new surroundings, spoke a language of their own called Konkani, married only amongst themselves, and worshipped idols which they had brought with them. Subsequently, owing to persecution by the Portuguese, they migrated further sough, some of them settling at Bhatkal and others in Cochin. Later on, a chieftain who was ruling over the Moolky area brought five of these families from Bhatkal, settled them at Mannapady, erected a temple for their benefit and installed their idol therein, which came to be known as Tirumalaivaru of Venkataramana, and endowed lands therefor. In course of time, other families of Gowda Saraswath Brahmins would appear to have settled in the three villages constituting Moolky, and the temple came to be managed by members of this community residing in those villages.
( 3 ) IN 1915, a suit, O. S. No. 26 of 1915, was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara under S. 92 of the Code of Civil procedure for framing a scheme for this temple. Exhibit A-6 is the decree passed in that suit. It begins by declaring that -"shri Venkataramana temple of Moolky situated in the village of Mannampadi, Nadisal Mangane, Mangalore taluk is an ancient institution belonging to the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin community, i. e. , the community to which the parties to the suit belong residing in the Moolky Petah, i. e. , the villages of Bappanad, Karnad and Mannampadi according to the existing survey demarcation". CLAUSE 2 of the decree vests the general control and management of the affairs of the temple, both secular and religious, in the members of that community. Clause 3 provides for the actual management being carried on by a Board of Trustees to be elected by the members of the community aforesaid from among themselves. Then follow elaborate provisions relating to preparation of register of electors, convening of meetings of the general body and holding of elections of trustees. This decree was passed on 9-3-1921, and it is common ground that the temple has ever since been managed in accordance with the provisions of the scheme contained therein. ( 4 ) THIS was the position when the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act (Madras, V of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act was passed by the Legislature of the Province of Madras. It will be useful at this stage to set out the relevant provisions of the Act, as it is the validity of S. 3 thereof that is the main point for determination in this appeal. The preamble to the Act recites that the policy of the Provincial Government was "to remove the disabilities imposed by custom or usage on certain classes of Hindus against entry into Hindu temples in the Province which are open to the general Hindu public". S. 2 (2) defines 'temple' as "a place by whatever name known, which is dedicated to or for the b
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
