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.

1 The petitioners seek to question the vires of S.2(22), 2(27) and S.47 to 55 in Chapter V of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (30 of 1987) (for short, "the Act"). But at the time of hearing Shri K. Parasaran, their learned senior counsel, restricted his arguments to the validity of S.50 to 55. The petitioner in the first writ petition is Peetadhipati of the institution known as "Mumukshu Jana Maha Peetham" (for short, 'Peetham') in Peda Muktevi village of Movva Mandal in Krishna District of Andhra Pradesh. It was averred therein that the Peetham was founded by one Seetharama Yetendrulu an advocate in the year 1938 and he became a sanyasi. His main philosophy was equality and universality of all religions faiths, good character, gratuitous conduct and devotion to God, far more important than mere rituals. He formed Mumukshu Jana Samajam in 1950. He published several books under that banner. He was running a Telugu magazine by name Mumukshuvu. He started school for the children. He was managing a temple of Lakshmipati Swamy. The devotees collected funds for all those projects by voluntary donation and the amount given through bhiksha (seeing alms). He donated his ancestral house and purchased 4 acres of land with the aid of Padakanukas (personal gifts). He died in 1972 and nominated one of his disciples as successor and thereafter with the aid of Padakanukas from thousands of disciples temples were constructed by the first petitioner and were being managed with the Padakanukas given by the devotees. It is not a public endowment but a private trust. The expenses for the maintenance of the math and worship in the temple are being carried on solely from the Padakanukas given by the devotees to reverence which the disciples gave to the Mathadhipathi. It is, therefore, clear that the above provisions are ultra vires, in their application to the petitioner math. Similar contentions have been raised in all other writ petitions. By their very admission, the petitioner's institution is a math and being managed from personal gifts etc. made by devotees and collected by disciples.

2 Shri Parasaran, the learned senior counsel, contended that S.48 of the Act excludes application of S.18 to 22, 25 and 28 of Chapter III to maths, the other provisions in Chapter III by implication would apply to the maths for the reason that they are not excluded. S.34 and 35, therefore, by implication stand attracted to the mathadhipathi irrespective of the fact whether mathadhipathi falls under the definition of "hereditary trustee" or not.

3 Mathadhipathi is the spiritual head to impart religious instructions. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a hereditary trustee nor he be held to hold any office or service or a post by whatever name it is called. Appointment of a Mathadhipathi is not a secular act. Mathadhipathi, indisputably not being a trustee, his appointment is purely a religious act. The nomination of the mathadhipathi is based upon usage and custom of the math. It is a concept appertaining to Hindu religious endowment. It is sui generis. One cannot put it in a strait jacket by any jurisprudential concept. S.54 imposes recognition of the nomination of a mathadhipathi by the Commissioner, an officer of the Government, who does not have knowledge of usages or practices prevalent in the relevant math. Imposition of such conditions is an interference with freedom of religion and power to manage religious affairs. Removal of Mahant Under S.51, filling up of vacancy Under S.53, recognition of nomination of Mahant Under S.54 and powers to frame a scheme for the management of a math Under S.55 are ultra vires of Articles 25(1) and 26(b) of the Constitution. The learned Counsel elaborated the contentions arguing that the procedure for nomination of the mathadhipathi, convening of a meeting with mathadhipathi of other maths of similar Sampradayams as provided Under S.54(2) of the Act, are repugnant to the usage