# 1! ' STATE OF RAJAS1HAN AND ORS v. SAJJANLAL PANJAWAT & ORS

- **Citation:** [1974] 2 S.C.R. 741
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-12-14
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 10S3 and 1092 of 1967
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1-state-of-rajas1han-and-ors-v-sajjanlal-panjawat-ors-6177
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

I
r
E
F
1!
'
STATE OF RAJAS1HAN AND ORS.
v.
SAJJANLAL PANJAWAT & ORS.
December 14, 1973
HI
rp JAGANMOHAN REDDY, S. N. DWIVEDI AND p K Gos
'
'
•
•
WAMI, JJ.)
JUJiwtlran Public Tmm -:fCI 1959-Ss. 17(3); 52(1 1 and SJ--if .
Art. 25 and 26 of the Corumltllon.
Yk>lod•o of
The respon~cnts :tllcccd before the Hiih Court that certain rovisiooa of
RajruthM Pubhc Tmsts Act, 1959 t<;>ntravcned thel! fundamental ~iihts &UMaD~
ullll<r 1\rL'- 25 nnd 26 of the Constl!utJon. . In the lint set 0_r appeals (C.A. Nos.
1083 :llld 109~ of 1967) ~e rcspoodcnt.s, Ill Lbcl! wru petiuon, claiwed tlw the
temple of Sbn Rik.babdeVJt (abo l.no>n1 as Kesbariyaaatbji temple) ,.. a
Swewnb.:r Ja1n temple wln•h W.>s UndcT the owner.;lup and Dl:lrulgomeut ol Jain
s.sh:ln :wd had been rccoarused as 'ucb 10 of!iCI:ll document.s as weU .., in tho
lirman> issued by the .cl'litwhile S~11.e of McwM and Lbat the SLate usurped the
tnllll.'lg<mcnt and apphed the provtstons of RaJasthan Public Trusts Act ao.1 thereby contravened their fundamental rigbt.s. In Lbe second set or a~pealt (C A!J
Nm. 1119 and 1087 of 1967) the Chairman of Lbe Trwt ComDllttce of Sbri
Natodati Pansoath Tirath illleged lh.u the a<.lministntion and man:te•ment of
tltt temple was beinll carried on by Lbc Tlll!t Committee on bellalt of Swe~mber
J>.in temple and th~ interference in t.be manaeemont of tho temple and other
religious institutions envisaged by the Act 11-a.s apiost Lbe IIS&&tS 111d cwtolll!,
pnncipiCII and ~ncl3 of t.be Jain re)jgion.
The Hi&h Court struck down a. 17(3) of the Act on Lbe pound thai under tho
rul<a made under the Act the sum cltasaed as reci.stratioo fee COOS tu the co,.<>-
lidated lund and was thu' not " fee but a tax wllicb the SUtc Leaislatu.re ~
not
competent to levy. Section '2(1 )(d) and (e) were suud down as .mvaltd as
o. 53 bad not provi'ded for proper sale~ . oi leavm&. the admtn~>traOon of
tbt property in the baQd, of t.be d~oolllln•uon. 8111 ~
.the mana~cment
of the temple had ve.•ted in the State prior to the coo>urnuon. the cucAor
Rilbabdevji wa.s held to have been covered by o.. '2tl)(a) or (c) of the
ct.
~on 53 was 'true I. down oo t.bc around th:l1 si~ ArL 26 contemplateo ubi:~
. ooly a denomination but n S<:ttion of the dcno1n1naUon. the !nmj ~.~ s~cUon
•ru•t rcpr<11entina the same rd1gion n>~Y not n~rily be member.l 0 has the a&lllo
or the denomination man:.ging the property even if sufch. ~~~''is U:~s tnnSlcmtl
O..,..t a• thut of the public llu.o;t. tho ruanagc:ment o "' "'
to the Commiltee of M•naacment.
1 th
·
·
h ld Lbat the ttmplc W3S a Swetall>-
bt n . e tint ~ct of appeals the Hi!)t Court eb S .t
It directed the Statt to
r htn ltmple which wa• be in~ rnan~~ed bv t e
1• ,•·tl ·n the Act.
<010\utute D Committee for ito manasemcnt as proVIu<
1
S.: .
• ·
to be pn:scotcd under sub-s.(!) o!
'Chon 17(3) provides t.bat nn nprllc•llon .
not e>ctcdint 6ve !llpce5.
thnt section "•hall be accompanied br "'ch fee. If ~nY. ib<\i"
Rule IS of the
OUid to be utili>ed for • ucb pumo><8. :L< rn-w b> ~~~ of tho trust property
kutcs apecin •• the rat<s of {ce paya~le on u>tferent f
bJll be cre.Jittd to the
~~m•r:•tcd U>eroin, ond (urthcr pmd~cs th.;'\th) ':,r ~Act enacts tb•t tb~ P!!'"
....._.,.,huated Fund of the State. Sc"tton ~.(
blic trUSt wllicb ves!J 111 ,.o
Slstotu COntained in Chapkr X stwll npply to evef'j p~ by tho State Govenun<at
1
1~lc: G•h·ernmenL (cl. u) or wh1"h I• n~1n>!"'!,l~ d,urt of Wards (d. d); ~d
of· j!: or which is u11da .U1c sllpc;rinten.tencco.nd ru~<S or 1)10te (ct. e).
·~t
33 " 11<~ the ~ttuss •nnual ta.omc " ten tbOII_'
1 shall v"t in a epmm~)' ro-
'f CrQ"d<e lh•t the nt•n•temenl of a ~u~hc tru5
menl
Sub .. ecnon (
P'a11
·' •ltllse
b
.
h
h
't·tte Go,crn
.
f M""•JeOl:DI •h
vid
ltlent to e con,ututed Y t c .;, t.b Committee o
- .
tb.e woe
be c. that the Cb:utm3Jl knd Members
e bli- !ttJSC. represcnu~sttrcsted in
rei' 8PPDinted !rom amongst (a) trustees ofrjedS• and (b) pc11ons /'nomination
~~ton o~ persuasion und having tho '~ of or beloogin

## Text

_Characters 0–39,990 of 90,077. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39990 for what follows._

I
r
E
F
1!
'
STATE OF RAJAS1HAN AND ORS.
v.
SAJJANLAL PANJAWAT & ORS.
December 14, 1973
HI
rp JAGANMOHAN REDDY, S. N. DWIVEDI AND p K Gos
'
'
•
•
WAMI, JJ.)
JUJiwtlran Public Tmm -:fCI 1959-Ss. 17(3); 52(1 1 and SJ--if .
Art. 25 and 26 of the Corumltllon.
Yk>lod•o of
The respon~cnts :tllcccd before the Hiih Court that certain rovisiooa of
RajruthM Pubhc Tmsts Act, 1959 t<;>ntravcned thel! fundamental ~iihts &UMaD~
ullll<r 1\rL'- 25 nnd 26 of the Constl!utJon. . In the lint set 0_r appeals (C.A. Nos.
1083 :llld 109~ of 1967) ~e rcspoodcnt.s, Ill Lbcl! wru petiuon, claiwed tlw the
temple of Sbn Rik.babdeVJt (abo l.no>n1 as Kesbariyaaatbji temple) ,.. a
Swewnb.:r Ja1n temple wln•h W.>s UndcT the owner.;lup and Dl:lrulgomeut ol Jain
s.sh:ln :wd had been rccoarused as 'ucb 10 of!iCI:ll document.s as weU .., in tho
lirman> issued by the .cl'litwhile S~11.e of McwM and Lbat the SLate usurped the
tnllll.'lg<mcnt and apphed the provtstons of RaJasthan Public Trusts Act ao.1 thereby contravened their fundamental rigbt.s. In Lbe second set or a~pealt (C A!J
Nm. 1119 and 1087 of 1967) the Chairman of Lbe Trwt ComDllttce of Sbri
Natodati Pansoath Tirath illleged lh.u the a<.lministntion and man:te•ment of
tltt temple was beinll carried on by Lbc Tlll!t Committee on bellalt of Swe~mber
J>.in temple and th~ interference in t.be manaeemont of tho temple and other
religious institutions envisaged by the Act 11-a.s apiost Lbe IIS&&tS 111d cwtolll!,
pnncipiCII and ~ncl3 of t.be Jain re)jgion.
The Hi&h Court struck down a. 17(3) of the Act on Lbe pound thai under tho
rul<a made under the Act the sum cltasaed as reci.stratioo fee COOS tu the co,.<>-
lidated lund and was thu' not " fee but a tax wllicb the SUtc Leaislatu.re ~
not
competent to levy. Section '2(1 )(d) and (e) were suud down as .mvaltd as
o. 53 bad not provi'ded for proper sale~ . oi leavm&. the admtn~>traOon of
tbt property in the baQd, of t.be d~oolllln•uon. 8111 ~
.the mana~cment
of the temple had ve.•ted in the State prior to the coo>urnuon. the cucAor
Rilbabdevji wa.s held to have been covered by o.. '2tl)(a) or (c) of the
ct.
~on 53 was 'true I. down oo t.bc around th:l1 si~ ArL 26 contemplateo ubi:~
. ooly a denomination but n S<:ttion of the dcno1n1naUon. the !nmj ~.~ s~cUon
•ru•t rcpr<11entina the same rd1gion n>~Y not n~rily be member.l 0 has the a&lllo
or the denomination man:.ging the property even if sufch. ~~~''is U:~s tnnSlcmtl
O..,..t a• thut of the public llu.o;t. tho ruanagc:ment o "' "'
to the Commiltee of M•naacment.
1 th
·
·
h ld Lbat the ttmplc W3S a Swetall>-
bt n . e tint ~ct of appeals the Hi!)t Court eb S .t
It directed the Statt to
r htn ltmple which wa• be in~ rnan~~ed bv t e
1• ,•·tl ·n the Act.
<010\utute D Committee for ito manasemcnt as proVIu<
1
S.: .
• ·
to be pn:scotcd under sub-s.(!) o!
'Chon 17(3) provides t.bat nn nprllc•llon .
not e>ctcdint 6ve !llpce5.
thnt section "•hall be accompanied br "'ch fee. If ~nY. ib<\i"
Rule IS of the
OUid to be utili>ed for • ucb pumo><8. :L< rn-w b> ~~~ of tho trust property
kutcs apecin •• the rat<s of {ce paya~le on u>tferent f
bJll be cre.Jittd to the
~~m•r:•tcd U>eroin, ond (urthcr pmd~cs th.;'\th) ':,r ~Act enacts tb•t tb~ P!!'"
....._.,.,huated Fund of the State. Sc"tton ~.(
blic trUSt wllicb ves!J 111 ,.o
Slstotu COntained in Chapkr X stwll npply to evef'j p~ by tho State Govenun<at
1
1~lc: G•h·ernmenL (cl. u) or wh1"h I• n~1n>!"'!,l~ d,urt of Wards (d. d); ~d
of· j!: or which is u11da .U1c sllpc;rinten.tencco.nd ru~<S or 1)10te (ct. e).
·~t
33 " 11<~ the ~ttuss •nnual ta.omc " ten tbOII_'
1 shall v"t in a epmm~)' ro-
'f CrQ"d<e lh•t the nt•n•temenl of a ~u~hc tru5
menl
Sub .. ecnon (
P'a11
·' •ltllse
b
.
h
h
't·tte Go,crn
.
f M""•JeOl:DI •h
vid
ltlent to e con,ututed Y t c .;, t.b Committee o
- .
tb.e woe
be c. that the Cb:utm3Jl knd Members
e bli- !ttJSC. represcnu~sttrcsted in
rei' 8PPDinted !rom amongst (a) trustees ofrjedS• and (b) pc11ons /'nomination
~~ton o~ persuasion und having tho '~ of or beloogin8 to tbe •
public trusts or in the endowment• there
742
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 s.c.R.
for the purpose of whicb or for the benefit of whom ~e trust was founded in
accordance with the aeneral wishes of the persons so Interested so far as such
wishes can be ascertained in the prescribed manner.
Allowinc th.e appeals,
HELD: Section 17(3) cannot be held to be invalid and 11l1ra yir~s the DOWer_
of the State Leiislature. The mere fact that the amount was patd lDto the con
solidated fund is by itself not sufficient t~ ~old that tho levy under s. 17(3) ~t..~~
."-ct is a tax. It was held in the c;ommlss1oner of H. R. E. Madraj. v. ~rl ~
'.
Jindra Tirtha Swamiar of Shri ShmJr Mutt that the essence of taxatwn as co ..
1
~
1
ion and imposition made for public purpose with~ut reference to any apeaa
benefit to be conferred on the payer of the _tax, that n to say, that the levy of ~~
is for the purposes of genc:ral revenue which, when coll~cted, forms part ot .
ublic revenues of the State. A fee on the .other ha':ld 1s t)ayment for a..apeClal_
teoefit or privile&e which the ill.dividual recetves. It 19 reaarded as a sort ot
return or consideration for ~rvices rendered and sho!lld be correlated to tke
ex nscs incurred by Government in rendering the .serv1ces. ln the. Secr~t•Y.·
G~"nment of Madras, Home Departtm!'~ll v. Zenith lAmp & ~lectncal Ltd .• u
was reiterated that the fact that the collecttons went to the ,Consoll~ated; FUDd "liS
not in itself. conclusive thou&h not much stress could be llud on thJ.S poUlt beQa~e
Art. 266 requires that all revenues raised by the State !!hall form part of tttc
Coii60Jidated Fuod. {7650-H; 766A)
In the instant case the expenditure on Devasthan Department wu much more
than the income from registration. The mere fact that the amount was paid toto
the Consolidated Fund is by ··$elf not sufficient to hold that the levy was a 1a1.
Secti?n Sf(l)(d) has no a~plica.tion in this case because it deals with a p•btic
tru~t wh1ch 1s under the supenntendenc:e of the Court of Wards and thi~ part of
the judgment of the High Court was clearly wrong.
[761 D]
it i! for the State Government, if it intends to apply tile provisions of Chapter
X of the Act, if it is satisfied that the &roea annual mcome exceeds ten th001a.nd
rupees to include it in the list of t'Ublie ttusts publi.med under sub-section (2) of
s. 52 in the official aazette. Section 53 postulates the application of Char1er X
before the management of the temple can be said to vest in a Committee of
Management to b~ constituted by the State Government in the manner provided
in that section. . Until the notification is published under sub-s. (2) of e. '1 ~
responden~ could not claim that their ri&hts were affected. {761E-G]
The hypothesis on which the High Court has based its conclusioJU ia oot
wvrant.:d by the provisions of sub-s.(.5) of •· .53 of the Act. In the first cate~.
apart from the CoiJllllittee being constituted from amongst the trustees of p1.1bi.U:
trusts representing ·the same 'religion the Committee can also be coJUtituted from
amongst the trustees of the same persuasion. The eignificance of the word "'llrsuasion" and what it connotes does not seem to have been considered by the Hilh
Court. The word persuasion is a S}'llonym of faith; creed, denomination, reliJjon
etc. In the first category also a Committee can be appointed from persons of the
denomination to which the trust belongs 11 in the second category with this di!arence that in the first category if the State Government chooses, it can appoint it
from the trustees representing that denomination or persuasion while in the acco.:l
category from amongst the persons who belong to the said denomination who may
not be trustees as such. Even where the persons interested satisfy the requirement! of s. 2(9) the additional requirement of cl. (b) of ~ub·s. (.5) of s. 53 is that
such persons must be also persons for whose benefit the trust was founded. A
reading of cl.(a) of Eub-s. (5) clearly indicates that the trustees must TCprcse.ol
the concerned religion or persuasion, which includes a denomination. It could
not have been the intention to l}ppoint a Committee of management oomprid~a~
trustees of a public trust of a particular religion or persuasion who do not belo!li
to that religion or persuasion or denomination. Nor d~s cl. (b) or suba-s. (.5)
of s. 53 empower persons who do not belong to a denomination to be appointed
to a public truit of that denomination. Again, the word "denomination" is wide
enOU!!h to include sections thereof, and it cannot therefore be said. a.~ the Hi&h
Court seems to assume, that a section of the denomination managing the property
may not be the same as trustees of public trusts repre,enting the same relig~on e~en
management of which is being transferred to the Committee. If s. S3(5)(a) L~
read in the manner 11uggested the difficulties pointed out by the High Court 'W(MI!d
not arise at all. f763D-H: 764A..Cl
.\
B
c
D
E
F
G
t.
- l
,I
ll
l~ c
D
E
IIMASTHAN V. SAJJA:-ILAL (Jagamnofran Reck~, J.)
7~3
On " consideration of all the documents admitted wb· b tb
d could not challen~e. there W» no doubt that Shrl Ril:~ bd e ~tate bad not,
):in temple and the Stat7 of Rajasthan hod produced 00 ev·~ e•1• templo was a
to show that It was a Hmdu temple where Jain< ut all se~ :.n~e !t!' the ~ntrary
all sects were allowed to worship. [749Fl
0
as Hmdus of
- There ~vas no ~ol!bt that the. mana1ement of the temple of Rik.habdevji with
iL< propertres had ~ ohdly vested !n the Ruler of Udaipur, and thereafter in the
successor Stole b:t~re the_ Con; tttuu"n o! India came ,010 {om:. There can he
no doubt thut any n~ht whtch. tho Jams or Myone of the \Wo Jain denom'nati
nam:Jy, tho Swetam~ar.; or _D•gacnb•r.~ or ~?alit, mi~t have had in the ~mpJ~'::;
in its mana~::.mcnt \\3S lost an the pre·Constuuuon penOd: and. 1! now vested in the
St>t. of Ruusth01n.
1753A I
Dirt<'IOr of Endowmtnts. Govt. of /IydmJbad & Orr. v Akrum Ali A 1 R
1956 S.C. 60 ond Sarh'arlul & Ors. v. The Srutt of 1/ydt;aba.J [1960) j s.c:R:
311, referred to.
The constitution under which the properties and mana:tment of the te-o' ·
b•<l \'ested in the Ruler ond thereafter in the :;r.,tc continued to be law by virtue
of Art. 312 of the Col1.5titution till it was repealed by the impu~ Act. Since
the r<,.pondents lo't the ri~ht to mao~~• ~nd admonC.tcr the temple and it• pro.
JXrtic& prior co the Constttulion by a valid !aw, they cannot now ~g:Un th~t
ril!ht on the plco that thor law contravened the rij<ht gu>ronteed Wl<ler Art. 26(d)
of the Constitution. 17S3Cl
DurRJlt Commilltr Ajmu v. Sred Hussain Ali, (19621 I S.C.R. 383, followal.
Tilakoym Sllri Go>·imllu/ji Maharai v. Tilt Slott of R~iastl:an & Ors. [19'-41
I S C.lt. Sf> I nt p. 621: Thr Commissioner, Jlirulu Rtligiou.t £11Lio,.,•mrors, Madras,
, .. ~ni l.ahlmiindra 'J'hirrhn Swamiar of Sri Sltirur Mutt. [19541 S.C.R. 1005.
and Sri VtnkatUttllllaJ/a Del"aru v. The St~te o/ Mysore, [19581 S.C.R. 895, referee~
to.
The High Court w;L, in erro r in giving the Lm.pogned direaions it! view ~~d
fact that the right of management of Rikbabde•J• temple wa:~. Ios_t as 11 was f tbcir
in the S~te and the respondents could not con:tplain !'f any mfnngcment o.
·
fuo.t.mcntal nghts to manage and admuuster tts offam.
CiVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
10S3 and
1092 of 1967 .
. From the judgment nnt.l order c.lat~d the 301~ ~~~~\~· J~J3o~f:.
Htgh Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur tn D.B. Ctv
SO! of 1962.
Civil Appeals Nos, 1081 and 1119 of 1967
d h 30th M:ud1 1966 of the
H. From the judgment aod order c.l;!tc !Be Civil Misc. 'writ Petition
c
t&h Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur 1n D. ·
.
No, 407 of 1962 aod via vusa.
II
Civil Appeal No. 1647 of 1961
66 f the
F
d th 4th August, 19
o
7
. ·rom the judgment and order .dale
C~ivil Writ Petition No. 19 ·
Rajnsth<~n High Court ut Jodhpur 10 D.B.
of 1963,
. for tile appellants (in
D. V. Patel, G. c. Kasliwal and S. M. Jau(· C. A. Nos. t0S7 -'
CJ\. Nos. 10~3 & 1119/67 aod respondents
111
1092/67)
.
_ .. ~
,;;_>• .-- --
.;
1
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974) 2 S.C.R.
M. C. Chagla, s. S. Khanduja, Pukhraj Singhvi, D. N. Misra and
A
J. B. Dadachanji, for the respondents (rn C.A. No. 1083) and sole
. respondent in C.A. No. 1119/67 and appellants (in C.A. Nos. 1087 &
IO':J2j6i) .
S. M.Jcin for the appellants (in C.A. No. 1647/67)
I
S. c. Agrawala, B. K. Garg and V. ! . Francis, for the respondents.
(in C. A. No. 1647f67)
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J.WANMOHAN REDDY, J.-These five appeals are by certificata
. .l
under Art. 133(l)(a) & (c) of the Constitution and have been heard
together as common questions of law were raised in all these ap.
' I
peals.
c ) .
Civil Appeal No. 1083 of 1967 is an appeal by the St<!te of Rajasthan against the respondents, while Civil Appeal No. 1092 of 1967
is the appeal by the respondents against the State of Rajasthan. Thesa
two appeals, which we may also refer as the first set of appeals,
arise out o! a writ petition filed by the respondents against the Statt
of Rajasthan alleging that the temple of Shri Rikhabdevji, also known
D
as Keshariyanathji temple, situated about 40 miles from Udaipur, is
a Swetamber Jain temple which is under the ownership and manage.
•ent of Jain Shasan and has been recognized as such in official docu·
mcnts as well as in the f11mans issued by the erstwhile State of Mcwar.
NoiWithstanding the position it was averred that the management of
the said temple bas been illegally usurped by the State of Rajasthan
through the Dcvasthan Department for some years, and that thcs
E
State of Raja.~than had applied certain provisions of the Rajasthan
Public Trust., Act, 1959-hereinafter called 'the Act'-to the said
temple which contravened the fundamental rights of the respondents
guaranteed unJcr Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The
r~spondcnts, th..-rcforc, prayed that the Court should refrain the State
from enforcing· provisions of the Act specified in the petition and
,.,...
declare them void being in contravention of the fundamental
rig.h~
f .
of the respondent~ guaranteed under Arts. 14 19, 25, 26 and 31 of
the Constitution of l ndia. They also challcng~d s. 17 ( 3) of the ~ct
on !he ground that the f~:c levied along with the application for rtg!S•
tratJon of the public trust is a tax. and therefore beyond the con1pe·
tcnce of the State Legislature. The case of the State ·of Raj;JSthnn,
~owevc~, was that the temple in question was not a Jain temple, but
G
15 a Hm<lu tempi.: where Jain~ o( all sects ag well as Hindus of all
b~~tcfs and sects including the Bhils worship.
Jt dcnh:d th~t tho pro-
\'ISJO~~ of the Act which had been enactcJ to rcgulato and to make ~cttel"
provlSJ.ons for the administration of public rcligiou~ ond chnnt;lbW
trust~ m the SliJtc of Rajasthan were in any way violativ" of Arts. 25
and 26 or ;.ny other article o( the Constitution.
Tt usscrtcd that tile
•una~eirlC'ot of t11e ~crnple was with the State of Rajash:m which h:ul
Jl
a valid. and le~al ~il.!ht to manal'e it, ~n<l tho• K. 17 (3) c,f the ACt
~\dS val1d:
The Hrgh C,ourt held that Rikhabdcvji temple is a Swet:
''libcr Jam temple and ts at pre~nt managed by the State of Ralai.
than., that ' · 17(3) of the Act is invalid because undc:r the RultS
\
'-i.; .
---~
P.AJASTHAN v. SAJJAN' LAL (Jaganmolum Reddy~ J.)
H5
A
that have been framed under the Act an amount of Rs. Sf- charpd
as registration fee goes to the Consolidated Fund, and is thus not a
fee but a tax which the State Le&islature was not competent to 1~.
Following the decision in another writ petition, which is the subjectmatter of the second set of appeals to wb.lch we shall refer presently,
the Hi&}l. Court struck down s. 52(1) (d> & (e) of the Act, but as
the management of the temple had :vested in the State prior' to the
n Constitution, the case of Rikhabdevji was held to have tieen co...e.rcd
by s. S2(l) Qa) or (c) of the Act. In the petition relatinc to the second set of appeals the High Court had held that cases of trust as are
mentioned in sub.ss. (l)(a>, (b) and (c) a secular Stato may not
like to keep the man.asement of public truat1 belonainJ to variou
denominations with it and may like to transfer it to ~
who zni&ht
c be better equipped for manaama it in accordance with the wilbtl ol
the founder or of the religious denomination to which the tru1t be ..
loop. But that would not be violative of Art.
26~b) and. (d) of tU
Constitution in any way. It was of the view that s. SZ( U (d) i <•)
of tlle Act was invalid ass. 53 had not provided for proper adt~U~fd•
for the administration of the property bein& left in tho haDda of the
denomination. Even so it held that these clause& were not applicable
to tbat case. In so far as the challenge to u. 30, 31, 38 to 43 of the
Act was concerned, it held them to be valid. In the result tho HiJh
D
E
F
G
H
Court pve the directions which are contamed in the followin1 con•
elusion now impugned :
.. This being our· conclusion the question is what reUcf the
petitioners (respondents) arc entitled to. Since we hl'fe
come to the conclusion that the management of the temple ia
with the State OoveJ;Dment the case lalla withJn HCtloD
52(1) ('aj or (c) of the Act which have been held. vaUct by
us. Therefore, no question of d.eprlvina the denomination
of the management of the temple arises in this cue. But
the Act contains a provision for the transfer of the manaa~
ment even for those public trua•s which fall under sub-lection
(l)(a), (b) and (c) of section 52 and the OoverJlJDtlnt
should therefore act accordingly and take early step~ to
transfer the management to a committee as envisaged by
sec!ion 53 of the Act and in doing so we hope the Govern~
ment while constituting the committee shall have due regard
to the wishes of the denomination as was done in the past
by the Maharana of Udaipur in Sambat Year 1934."
In this view the High Court partly allowed the writ petition boldinJ
that the temple of Shri Rikhabdevji is a Sweta.mber Jain templo and'
is at present being managed by the State of Rajasthan and since it
was being managed by the Sfate of Rajasthan the High Court directed
the State to constitute a Committee for its management as provided in
the Act. As seen earlier s. 17f3) of the Act was held ultra vire9 the
State Legislature. Both the parties, being aggrieved, have·filed separate appeals as af~resaid.
.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1119(N) Qf 1967 is bv the State of Rajasthan
while Appeal No. 1087(N) of. 1967 is by Shri Surajmal Singhvi. These
'746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1974} 2 S.C.R.
.a~peals~ whi~~ we. may also term the second set o~ appeals, arise out
.of a wr1t petltlon filed by the respondent Surajmal Singhvi who claims
.to be the Chairman of the Trust Committee of Shri Nakodaji Parasnath
Tirath alleging that the ad~nistration and management of that temple
was being carried on by the Trust Committee on behalf of the Swetamber !~ Sangh. in. whi.ch is vested the entire property of the temple
.conststmg of buildmgs, cash, ornaments of the idol and all other movable and immovable properties.
It was claimed that according to the
religious faith and belief of Jains, the properties of the said temple can
only be utilised for the maintenance, upkeep and worship of the idol
and for the purpose of different religious ceremonies, prop.tgation of
Jain faith and religion and for other analogous purp:>ses which are
pious, religious and charitable. It was, therefore, averred that inasmuch •s tne administration and management of the said temple and
worship of the idol and other religious ceremonies
are' carried on
.according to the scriptures and tenets of Jain religion they do not brool
.any outside interference, and consequently the interference . in the.
management of the temples and other religious institutions envisaged
by the Act was against the usages and customs,. principles and tenets
of Jain religion.
On these allegations the various provisions of the
Act were challenged on the ground that they were in direct and fiagrant
breach of the fundamental right of religious freedom and freedom of
conscience of the Jains and their right to freely profess, practise and
propagate religion. It was also contended that the impugned provisions
imposed unreasonable restrictions on the religious denomination to
maintain and manage religious institutions and to manage their own
aJfairs in the matter of religion and to administer the property accordin~
to the Jain Shasan.
The High Court held that Chapters V, VI and VII of the Act
-deal with the registration of public trusts and provide certain safeguards
to protect them from dissipation. These provisions are analogous to
those contained in the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950-hereinafter
~ailed 'the Bombay Act'-which provisions regarding registration of
public trusts were held to be valid by this Court in Ratilal PanachoHd .
Gondhi v. State of Bombay(1).
The High Court, however, allowed
the writ petition filed by the respondent as in its view proper safeguards
were not provided in s . .53 of the Act for leaving the administration
·of the property in the hands of the denomination and that ss. 17 (3)
·and 52 (1 )(d) and (e) of the Act being ultra vir e.$ the State Legislature
were invalid.
The rest of the provisions of the Act were held con-
·stitutional and valid.
Against this judgment, . both
parties
have
:appealed as pointed out earlier.
The fifth appeal is Civil Appeal No. l647(N) of 1~67 arising out
'Of a writ petition filed by one Pandit Ram Dayal agairlst the State of
Rajasthan challenging the constitutional validity of the Act and the
Rules framed thereunder on the ground, inter alia; that they contravened
his fundamental rights enshrined in Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
as they take away, limit or abridge his right to manago the affairs of
------··-----
(1) [19541 S.<::.R. lOSS.
A
n
c
D
E
F
c
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAJASTHAN
~·. SAJJANLAL (Jagamnohan Reddy, J.)
7471
the two temples known as Thakurji Vijay Govindji and Thakur.ii Shri.
Sin•h Bchar1ji itt accord~nce with the tenets of the religion and the
traditions of his family.
The respondent's case was that the temple of.
Thakurji Vijay Govindji is situated within the residential premises of
the respondent in Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur City, and
the temple of
Thakurii Shri Sireh Behariii is situated ncar the first temple. Both
these temples, according to him, were his family temples and neither
the public in general visited those temples for worship nor any offerings
were made to the deities.
Nevertheless it was admitted th.at certain
properties were granted by the then Maharaja of Jaipur to his great~·
grandfather for the maintenance anc.l for providing B.hog, Pooja etc.
of those temples. The resp;:>ndent, therefore, challenged the constitutional validity of the several provisions of the Act specified therein on.
the ground that they contravene his fundamental rights guaranteed by
Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution to freely profess, practise, propa~·
gatt' his religion and has placed unreasonable restrictions on his fundil-·
mental right to manage t~e affairs and to carry on the administration·
of the aforesaid temples in accordance with the tenets of his religion
and the traditions of his family.
He, therefore,. prayed that the High
Court should declare that the two temples in question ..ycrc private
temples and tha.t the Act was not applicable to them.
The appellant contested the claim of the respondent that the tempb were his private temples. . According to the State, these temples
were public temples, that Shri Anandilal the great grand-father of the:
respondent was put in charge of Scwa-Pooja of the temples and that
!he land was granted by the Rulers of the former State of Jaipur for
the maintenance of the temples, for the performance of Sewa-Pooja:
nnd for making offerings to the deities, and, therefore, they were public
rdigious trusts within the meaning of s. 2( 11) of the Act. It denied•
that the respondent would be deprived of any of the fundamental right
guaranteed by the Constitution, nor in its view do any of the provisions
of the Act interfere with the religious freedom of any person muct,
less the respondent, nor do any of those provisions impose unreasonable·
restrictions on the respondent. The High Court, foUowing the decision
in Surajmal Singhvi's case, which is the subject-matter of the second·
set of appeals, held the provisions of the Act to be valid except those
mentioned in sub~s. ( 3) of s. 17 and clauses (d) and (c) of sub~.·
( 1) of s. 52 of the Act, which were, as already noticed, struck down
ns being ul!ra vires the State Legislature. The question whether the
temples were private temples or :public religious trusts docs not seem·
to have been urged, as on the petitioner's contention in view of the
dcci~ion in Surajmaf Singhvi's case the State should be directed not
10 take any action the Court P,ranted the relief referred to above. This
appeal is against this judgment.
In the first set of appeals. three questions arise for determination-
( I) whether the petitioners/respondents who claim to represent the·
s.,~·etamber Jain sect can challenge the right of the State to m:Jn3gc
Shri RH-.habdevji temple; (2) whether the provisions of the Act in any
way infrin~e their fundamental rights to manage their own affairs in
m:~Ucrs of reli~ion and to administer such property in accordance with·
748
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 S.C.R.
t?o law under clause (b).~ (d) ot AI},. 26; and (3) if they have a
r!ght to manage and adrru!l1ster the temple whether any of the provisions of the Act offend the1r fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts.
25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution,
·
If the temple is a Hindu temple the respondents have no loc11s
standi to ask for the reliefs prayed for in the petition. But if it is
not a Hindu temple, then the question whether it is a Swetamber Jain
temple or a Digamber Jain temple will become relevant only if we were
to hold that the management of the temple was not validly vested in
the State prior to the Constitutio~'-or even if it had vested in tho State
any of the fundamental. rights of ~e ~orshippen of the temple gu~ran:
teed under Arts. 2S and 26 are infrm&cd.
ln our view. the que~tlon
whether tie temple is a Swetamber J iln temple or a Dlgamber 1 aitl
temple as contended by the interveners does not arise for decision in
the&e appeals, firstly because, it the management had vested in the
State of Rajasthan under a pre-Consti~ution law and that law cannot
be challenged under the Constitution, the nght of the State to adminis·
ter and manage the temple is unassailable; secondly, even if the right
of the State to manage the temple after the Constitution came into
force can be successfully challenged as offending the provisions of Arts.
25 and 26 of the Constitution, the management of the temple by the
State will be held to be ultra vires and illegal.
And in that event the
Court need not go further. The learned Advocate for the respondents,
however, contests this reasoning, because according to him as the
re~pondenta in their petition have categorically stated that they rcpre·
sent the Swetamber Jain sect entitled to the management of the temple
and bne accordingly prayed that not only the State of Ralasthan be
restrained from carrying out the management of the temple but that
they be allowed to manage it and continue the said management, it is
i:.lcumbent upon this Coun to give a finding as to whether the Keshari·
., <'!'iathji temple is a SwetambCr Jain temple. lt is further contended
that even if the management of the temple bad been taken over prior
· to the Constitution under a valid law, the right of the respondents to
follow their religion in accordance with the tenets of that religion
would nevertheless continue after the Constitution, and therefore they
can challenge the right of the State to continue the manageme11't as
being in contravention of the provisions of Arts. 25 and 26 of the
Constitution.
We may here mention that the Digamber Jain sect which was not
a party before the High Court had ·applied for being allowed to
intervene in these appeals. It appears that after the respondents filed
the writ petition on November 17, 1962, a notice was given by the
solicitors of the interveners to the respondents on March 12, 1963,
requiring them to implead the interveners in the writ petition failing
which thev would themselves apply to the Court for bein~ made a
party. It is, therefore, contended that since the interveners did not
apply to make them a party, they·cannot now be allowed to intervene.
This contention is no longer available to the respondents,
as the
learned Chamber Judge after giving notice to the respondents allowed
the petition and permitted them to intervene. Accordingly we have
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
WASTHAN v. SAJJANLAL (Jaganmohan Reddy) I)
749
allowed the interveners to represent their point of view. The learned
Advocate for the interveners submits that Digamber Jain sect did not
set themselves impleaded even though they had intended to do so,
because at that tirne the res_pondents did not pray that the xna.naseme-t
of tho temple should be &lven to them, but had only challenged the
riJbt of the State to manage the temple and to restrain it from doin1
so. As the prayer then was, which did not in any way conflict with
their rights, they dld not apply .for b~ing made a party to the petition,
but filed a separate writ petition of their own. It was only after the
notice was given to implead the interveners that the respondents applied
on April 3, 1963, for an amendment praying that they be allowed to
manaae the said temple which amendment was il'anted. The appli~
c•tion wa5 granted on July 29, 1963 and accordingly the proposed
amendment was effected in the writ petition. The contention of tlte
interveners is that as the High Court has now given directions to the .
State of Rajasthan for appointing a Committee of Swetamber Jain sect
on the assumption that the temple was a Swetamber Jain temple, the
Digamber Jain sect worshippers are affected and have, therefore7
applied for and obtained perinission to intervene.
As we ~ave said earlier, in this case we do not wish to determine
the question whether the temple is a Swetamber temple or a Digamber
temple, not only because the Digamber sect was not a party, but
because tho State of Rajasthan was not interested in contesting tho
claim of the respondents that it was a .Swetamber temple. What the
State was interested in was to non·suit the petitioners/respondents on
the ground that they had no right to the management of the temple,-
as that riaht had vested in the State prior to the Constitution, and· even
if .that right can be challenged afer. the Q:)nstitution. the temple beina
a Hindu temple where all sects including the Jains and the Bhils
worshipped~ the respondents would have no locus standi.
In our view, however, without going into the question whether the
temple is a Swetamber or a Digamber Jain temple, it will be sufficient
for us to consider whether the temple is a Jain temple, or as alleged
by the State a Hindu temple. on· a consideration of all the documents
admitted, which the State has not, and cannot challenge, we have
no doubt that Shri Rikhabdevji temple is a Jain temple and the State
of Rajasthan has produced no evidence to the contrary to show that
it is a Hindu temple where Jains of all-sects as well as Hindus of all
sects including the Bhils are allowed to worship.
Apart from a, copy of the firman of the Emperor Akbar producea
by the respondents to show that Shri Rikhabdevji temple. is a
Swetamber Jain temple, the authenticity of which has been disputed
by the State, there are other documents from which it appears
in~
disputable even as was represented by the State and its predecessors
that Shri Rikhabdevji temple is a Jain temple. Annexure 26-The
Imperial Gazetteer of India, Vol. XXI (New Edition 1908 pp. 168~
169) describes it .as "The famous Jain temple sacred to Adinath or
Rikhabnath." · It further states that it is annually visited by thousands
of pilsrims irom all parts of Rajputana and Gujarat, and that it is
difficult to determine the age of ~his puilding, but three inscriptions
750
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19741 2 s.c.R.
mention that it was repaired in the· fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
There can be no doubt that it is an ancient temple, though it is not
possible to say when and by whom the idols were consecrated. We
find as late as in 1958 that Annexure 30-:-a Calendar printed and
published by th~. Gf>vernment of Rajll$than-has a photo of Shri
. Rikhabdevji temple under which there is a caption ''UDAIPUR KE
PAS RlKHABDEVJI KA PRASIDH JAIN MANDIR" i.e. famous
Jain temple of Rikhabdevji near Udiapur. Annexure 17 is a notification issued by the 'Mewar Government on Chait Suk.Ia 7 Monday 1982
corresponding to April 19, 1926 A.D. with the heading "Unique Angi
Utsav in Shn Dhulevnagar". In it Shri Keshariyanathji Maharaj is
described as a holy Jain Tirath whi~h was managed previously by
Udiapur Nagar Seth and Seth Jorawarmalji. We are not for
the
present concerned with the statement contained therein about the ntis·
appropriation of the money of the deity in Samvat Year 1934. But
this document also shows that the State of Mewar describes it as a hoJy
Jain Tnth. Annexures 2t 3, 4, 6, 7 A, 713 and 7C show that some
embezzlement of the temple funds was St;!Spected in Samvat Year 1933
(about year 1875-76 A.D.) as a result of which one Molvi Abdul
Rehman Khan was deputed by the State of Udaipur to make enquiry
a~ check th~ accounts. lt aP,pears that while this enquiry was proceeding, one Bhandari JawailJi Khem Raj complained against
th~t
Molvi for forcibly breaking open the loct of the Bhandar aild taking
away the account books and other papers. In that connection he
described the temple of Shri Rekhabdevji Maharaj as belonging to the
Jain Sangb. Annexure 9 dated January 27, 1878, is a notification of
the Government of Udiapur State for the information of the, pilgrims
and tho devotees of Shri Rikhabdevji stating that Bhandaries were
rcmm·ed due to their mismanagement of the temple affairs and that
a Committee consisting of five respectable Oswal Mahajan devotees
of Shri Rikhabdevji, was appointed.
Annexure 10 dated November
22, 1878, is a notice issued by the members of the Committee to dispel
doubts about the action taken by the Ruler of the State in appointing
a Committee for the management of the temple.
It also mentions
that the management has been assigned to a Committee of five or seven
big Sahukars who follow Jain religion and
lead
a
religious
life.
Annexure 24 dated May 29, 1886, is a copy of the report made by
Mehta Govind Singh Hakim Magra (an officer having both judicial
and magisterial powers) to Mahkama Khas, Udaipur, on an application
submitted by some Digamber Jains objecting to the raising of Dhawaja
i.e. flag over the 'Jainalaya' by the Swetamber Jains. In that report it
was stated tbat thr: temple was a Swetamber Jain temple. Annexure
21 dated July 19, 1907, shows that on a complaint that some people
l1ad allowed low caste people to perform Puja of Shri Rikhabdevji by
taking some illegal gratification, the matter was referred by the Officer
of the Devasthan Bhandar to Jain Muni Paniyas Nem 'Kushalji as to
what step.;; be taken for purification of the temple and the reply given
by the said Muni.
Annexure 28 dated Kartik Sudi 10 Samvat 1979
(1922 A.D.) is a copy of the report of the Devasthan Department to
Mahk:ama Khas, Udaipur State, stating that 'Naivedya' should not be
offered to the deity Shrl Rikhabdevji as neither the Committee nor the
Jain Sangh nor the Acharyas of the Jain Sangh are in favour of it, and
A
c
D
E
F
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
F
P..AJ'ASTHAN v. SAJ.TAN LAL (laganmohan Reddy, /.)
751
that the new practice of offering 'Naivedya' for the first time is uncalled for.
On this· report, the· Mahkama Kbas ordered that the
Devasthan be informed that there is no necessity of offering 'Naivedya'.
Annexure 29 dated Samvat 1889 (Sak 1759) (1833 A.D.) is a copy
Qf inscriptions engraved on the main gate in which there is a reference
to the performance of the ceremony of Dhawja-Danda on the temple
of Shri Rikhabdevji Maharaj. All these documents, there being no
document to the contrary filed by the State of Rajasthan, clearly show
that Shri Rikhabdevji temple is a 1 ain temple.
The next question is whether the manag~ment of the temple ·had
been taken over prior to the Constitution by. the erstwhile Udaipur
State under a law; and whether that management continued to be vested
even after the Constitution in its successor State, namely the State: of
Rajasthan, and if so, whether the respondents' fundamental
rights
guaranteed under Arts. 25 and 26 are affected. The High Court has
held that the Ruler of the erstwhile Udaipur State, by virtue of his.
sovereign power always exercised general superintendence over the
temples and on finding that there was mismanagement of the temple
affairs, the management which was· till then vested in the Nagar Seth
was transferred to a Committee and the President of the "Sel Kantar
Sabha" (a Department of the erstwhile State of Mewar) was appointed
its Manager. The Sel Kantar Sabha took the keys of the Bhandar from
the Nagar Seth ori November 29, 1877, after the management was
transfered to the Committee. It also held that vacancies in the .
Committee occurring from time to time were being filled up by the
orders of the Ruler of the State and whenever there was a dispute about
the affairs of the temple it . was referred to the Government ·and its
decision was obtained. In 1948 when mismanagement of the temple
was again reported; the Government appointed a Tribunal to make an
enquiry and report about the state of mismanagement and ordered that
the affairs of the temple should be managed according to the report
of Shri Tej Singh Kothari until a final decision was taken · by the
Government on the report of the Tribunal. Tht;se findings, in our
view, are supported by Annexures 6, 7A, 33, 41 and 42.
It also appears that a Constitution was . promulgated by the
Maharana of Udaipur on May 23, 194 7, which was subsequently
amended on October 11. 1947. It is evident from the preamble that
the Rulers of Mewar claimed that they were ,ruling the State as the
Dewans on behalf of Lord Shiva represented by Eklingji MaharaJ. The
Ruler was always referred to as Shriji. In paragraph 2 of Art1cle II
G
it is stated that .. All shrines; temples and other religious and charitable
institutions forming part of Devasthan described in Schedule I or which
may hereafter be found to have formed part thereof or which form
part thereof by future dedication and all property and funds appertainmg thereto are hereby declared to be vested m Devasthan Nidhi hereby
constituted in law as a Corporation with a seal of its own." By paragraph-3 of Article II it was provided that the Devasthan Nidhi shall
H
hold all the s~d institutions, their properties and funds for the purposes
specified therein. The constitution of the Devasthan Nidhi, its powers
· and duties have been set out in Paragraph 4 to 10 of Article II of the
Constitution. Shree Rikhabdevji temple at Dhulve anc;l its propertie$
2-!.748 SuPCI/74
.
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 s.c.a.
are set out in item 32 of Schedule I of the List of Devasthan Temples.
A
To this Constitution cer~in amendments were made by the Ruler on
<?cto}?er 11. 1947 •. the main object of which was to deal with the objectuons to the formation of Devasthan Nidhi and allocation of its funds on
other grounds also. Paragrll>hs 2 to 10 of Article II were replaced
and it w~s ordC!ed. by. him that .all shrines. temples !!nd other religious
and chantable mstltl.ttlons foraung pat:t of Devasthan described in
S~hed~le I etc. w.ere vested)n Shriji (the Ruler) to be administered by
B
him wtth the asststance of ~n advisory body.