# BRAMCHARI SIDHESWAR BHAI AND ORS. ETC v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL ETC

- **Citation:** [1995] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 745
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1995-07-02
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 4434A34D of 1986
- **Bench:** Kuldip Singh, N. Venkatachala, S. Saghir Ahmad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bramchari-sidheswar-bhai-and-ors-etc-v-state-of-west-bengal-etc-13462
- **Pages:** 52

## Headnote

Canstitutia11 of !11dia, 1950:
A
B
Article Jo-Minorities-Right ta establish a11d administer educational C
Institutians-Ramakrislma Missia11-Fallowers of-Citizens residi11g in West
Bengal-Professing, Practising and propagating the religious teachings of
Swami Vivekananda-Held not a religious minority-Held not a separate and
distinct religion from Hindu religion .
Article 26(a)-Freedam ta ma11age religious affairs-Religious D
de11aminatian-Test far determinatia11-Ramakrishna Mission-Held a
religious denomination of Hindu Religion and thus entitled ta protection of
Article 26(a).
Religious denomination-Right ta establish institutions-Imparting of E
religious education and general education.
Ramakrishna Mission-:Establishment of College at Rahrrr-State
Government allowing college ta have its aw11 Governing Bady instead of a
standard body ·as required far other sponsored colleges-Held direction ta
State Government ta constitute its awn governing body an standard pattern
F
for Ramakrishna College held would not be in the interests of justice.
The Government of West Bengal approved the setting up of a three
years degree college at Rahra under the auspices of Ramakrishna Mission
which was to function as a sponsored college with financial assistance from G
the State and the Union Government. The Calcutta University granted
affiliation to the college and also accorded approval to the Governing body
of the College as constituted by the Ramakrishna Mission. Therefore,
Ramakrishna Mission did not have a governing body modelled on the
common pattern of governing bodies of sponsored colleges. The memo
dated 16.1.1971 conveying approval of the Government regarding composi· H
745
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. l S.C.R.
A
tion of the governing bodies of the sponsored colleges did not include
governing bodies of sponsored colleges run by Missionary Societies on the
basis of agreement with respective Missions. On resignation of the Principal of College, the then Head of the Ramakrishna Mission, Bellurmath,
Swami Shivmoyananda was appointed as Principal. However, Teachers
B
c
Council of the Ramakrishna Mission College was agitated by new
Principal's appointment. Therefore, they resorted to strike; took over the
management of the College and not only prevented. the newly appointed
Principal from functioning as Principal but also made Prof. A.R. Das
Gupta to function as the In-charge Principal of that College. Consequently,
the Ramakrishna Mission and the Secretary of the Governing Body of the
College instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that the functioning of
Shri Das Gupta as Principal was illegal.
The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court for a direction
to the Government of West Bengal to reconstitute the Governing Body of
D the Ramakrishna Mission College according to standard pattern for
Governing Bodies of sponsored Colleges as per Government Memo No.
752-Edn. (CS)/C.S. 30-3/77 dated 18th April, 1978; (ii) a declaration that
the Ramakrishna Mission College was governed by West Bengal Act of
1975 and West Bengal Act of 1978; and (iii) an order restraining Swami
Shivmoyanand from acting as Principal of Ramakrishna Mission College.
E
A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition holding that
the Colleges established and administered by Ramakrishna Mission comprised of the followers of Ramakrishna religion, being protected under
Article 30(1) of the Constitution, the provisions in West Bengal Act of 1975
F
and 1978 did not apply. However, the claim that Article 26(a) of the
Constitution enabled the Ramakrishna Mission to establish educational
institutions as a religious denomination was not apply. However, the claim
that Article 26(a) of the Constitntion enabled the Ramakrishna Mission
to establish educational institutions as a religious denomination was not
G accepted. Against the order of Single Judge a writ appeal was preferred.
The State of West Bengal and Calcutta University also filed separate writ

## Text

_Characters 0–39,942 of 117,665. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39942 for what follows._

..
BRAMCHARI SIDHESWAR BHAI AND ORS. ETC.
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL ETC.
JULY 2, 1995
[KULDIP SINGH, N. VENKATACHALA AND
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]
Canstitutia11 of !11dia, 1950:
A
B
Article Jo-Minorities-Right ta establish a11d administer educational C
Institutians-Ramakrislma Missia11-Fallowers of-Citizens residi11g in West
Bengal-Professing, Practising and propagating the religious teachings of
Swami Vivekananda-Held not a religious minority-Held not a separate and
distinct religion from Hindu religion .
Article 26(a)-Freedam ta ma11age religious affairs-Religious D
de11aminatian-Test far determinatia11-Ramakrishna Mission-Held a
religious denomination of Hindu Religion and thus entitled ta protection of
Article 26(a).
Religious denomination-Right ta establish institutions-Imparting of E
religious education and general education.
Ramakrishna Mission-:Establishment of College at Rahrrr-State
Government allowing college ta have its aw11 Governing Bady instead of a
standard body ·as required far other sponsored colleges-Held direction ta
State Government ta constitute its awn governing body an standard pattern
F
for Ramakrishna College held would not be in the interests of justice.
The Government of West Bengal approved the setting up of a three
years degree college at Rahra under the auspices of Ramakrishna Mission
which was to function as a sponsored college with financial assistance from G
the State and the Union Government. The Calcutta University granted
affiliation to the college and also accorded approval to the Governing body
of the College as constituted by the Ramakrishna Mission. Therefore,
Ramakrishna Mission did not have a governing body modelled on the
common pattern of governing bodies of sponsored colleges. The memo
dated 16.1.1971 conveying approval of the Government regarding composi· H
745
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. l S.C.R.
A
tion of the governing bodies of the sponsored colleges did not include
governing bodies of sponsored colleges run by Missionary Societies on the
basis of agreement with respective Missions. On resignation of the Principal of College, the then Head of the Ramakrishna Mission, Bellurmath,
Swami Shivmoyananda was appointed as Principal. However, Teachers
B
c
Council of the Ramakrishna Mission College was agitated by new
Principal's appointment. Therefore, they resorted to strike; took over the
management of the College and not only prevented. the newly appointed
Principal from functioning as Principal but also made Prof. A.R. Das
Gupta to function as the In-charge Principal of that College. Consequently,
the Ramakrishna Mission and the Secretary of the Governing Body of the
College instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that the functioning of
Shri Das Gupta as Principal was illegal.
The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court for a direction
to the Government of West Bengal to reconstitute the Governing Body of
D the Ramakrishna Mission College according to standard pattern for
Governing Bodies of sponsored Colleges as per Government Memo No.
752-Edn. (CS)/C.S. 30-3/77 dated 18th April, 1978; (ii) a declaration that
the Ramakrishna Mission College was governed by West Bengal Act of
1975 and West Bengal Act of 1978; and (iii) an order restraining Swami
Shivmoyanand from acting as Principal of Ramakrishna Mission College.
E
A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition holding that
the Colleges established and administered by Ramakrishna Mission comprised of the followers of Ramakrishna religion, being protected under
Article 30(1) of the Constitution, the provisions in West Bengal Act of 1975
F
and 1978 did not apply. However, the claim that Article 26(a) of the
Constitution enabled the Ramakrishna Mission to establish educational
institutions as a religious denomination was not apply. However, the claim
that Article 26(a) of the Constitntion enabled the Ramakrishna Mission
to establish educational institutions as a religious denomination was not
G accepted. Against the order of Single Judge a writ appeal was preferred.
The State of West Bengal and Calcutta University also filed separate writ
appeals. A Division Bench of the High Court, dismissed all the writ appeals
expressing its agreement with the Single Judge that the Ramakrishna
Mission comprised of followers of Ramakrishna, being a minority based
on religion was protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. the
H
Division Bench also expressed its disagreement with the view that Article
BRAM CHARI SIDHESW AR BI-W v. ST A TE
747
26(a) of the Constitution did not protect the Ramakrishna Mission from A
establishing educational institutions as a religious denomination. It further held that since both the West Bengal Acts of 1975 and 1978 did not
contain any express provision including their application to educational
institutions established and maintained by the Ramakrishna Mission,
those Acts would be inapplicable, to the Ramakrishna Mission College and B
other colleges of Ramakrishna Mission for to hold otherwise would
amount to infringement of the rights enjoyed by the Ramakrishna Mission
under Article 26(a) and 26(b) of the Constitution.
In appeals to this Court on the questions whether:
1. Can the citizens of India residing in the St~te of West Bengal who
are professing, practising or propagating the religious doctrines and
teachings of Ramakrishna and have become his followers, claim to belong
c
to a minority based on Ramakrishna religion which was distinct and
different from Hindu religion and as such entitled to the fundamental right
under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, of establishing and D
administering educational institu_tions of their choice through Ramakrishna Mission or its branches in that State?
2. Do persons belonging to or owing allegiance to Ramakrishna
Mission belong to a religious denomination or any section thereof as would E
entitle them to claim the fundamental rights conferred on either of them
under Article 26 of the Constitution?
3. If persons belonging to or owing allegiance to Ramakrishna
Mission is a religious denomination or a section thereof, have they are
fundamental right of establishing and maintaining institutions for a F
charitable purpose under Article 26(a) of the Constitution of India?
4. If Ramakrishna Mission as a religious denomination or a section
thereof establishes and maintains educational institutions, can such institutions be regarded as institutions established and maintained for G
charitable purpose within the meaning of Article 26(a) of the Constitution
oflndia?
5. Is Ramakrishna Mission College at Rahra established and maintained by Ramakrishna Mission and if so, will the constitution of its
governing body by the Government of West bengal amounts to infringe- H
748
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A ment of Ramakrishna Mission's fundamental right to establish and maintain an educational institution under Article 26(a) of the Constitution of
India?
B
c
6. Can the court direct the West Bengal Government because of West
Bengal Act, 1975 and West Bengal Act 1978, to constitute governing body
on 'standard pattern' of sponsored college envisaged under its Memo
dated 18th April, 1978 in respect of Ramakrishna Mission College when
that memo itself says that colleges' established and maintained by Missions
on the basis of agreements cannot be treated as sponsored colleges for the
purpose of constituting governing bodies for them on a 'standard pattern':
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
HELD: 1. The citizens of India residing in the State of West Bengal,
who are professing, practising or propagating the religious doctrines and
teachings of Ramakrishna and have become bis followers, cannot claim to
D belong to a minority based on Ramakrishna religion which was distinct
and different from Hindu religion and as such are not entitled to the
fundamental right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, of
establishing and administering educational institutions of their choice
through Ramakrishna Mission or its branches in that State. [788-G-H]
E
2. The view of the High Court that Ramakrishna religion exists apart
F
G
and distinct from the Hindu religion and it is a minority religion which
has the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India are unsustainable. [796-E)
3. The views that Shri Ramakrishna brought into existence, during
his life time, by his practices and teachings a religion distinct and different
from Hindu religion and it was Ramakrishna universal religion, indeed,
go against the philosophy of Hindu religion as expounded, practiced and
preached by Shri Ramakrishna himself and latter propagated to the ooole
world by his principal disciple Swami Vivekananda and other disciples.
[785-GJ
4. The peculiar circumstances which led Ramakrishna Mission to
make a claim that Ramakrishna religion was a distinct and separate
religion from Hindu religion and, therefore, a minority religion having the
protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, to save the Ramakrishna
H Mission College for Ramakrishna Mission and all other educational in-
•
BRAM CHARI SIDHESWAR BHAI v. STATE
749
stitutions established and administered by Ramakrishna Mission or its A
branches from being taken away under one pretext or the other by the State
Government, should not have found favour with the High Court for
declaration that Ramakrishna religion as a minority religion entitled to
protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, when such
claim made on behalf of R~makrishna Mission was based not on the B
sayings, teachings, preachings or practices of Ramakrishna and Swami
Vivekananda pertaining to Hinduism not tied-down to any definite
philosophic concepts, but on supposed statements made by Swami
Vivekananda without indicating context or place and time in which they
were made. Even otherwise those statements, as they stands, do not indi·
cate that Ramakrishna brought into existence his own religion and called C
it Ramakrishna religion. [784-G-H, 785-A-B)
5. What is said by Ramakrishna of Hindu religion and what is said
by Swami Vivekananda of Vedanta, the very soul of Hindu religion and its
message that 'service to man is service to God' makes it abundantly clear D
that Ramakrishna brought into existence no religion of his own which was
called as universal religion, but gave the message of Vedanta of 'service to
man is service to God' as the universal principle basic to all religions and
it being the message which was preached by Swami Vivekananda as the
message given by his master based on Vedanta philosophy of Hindu
religion, it would be a travesty of truth to say that Ramakrishna created E
a religion independent, distinct and apart from Hindu religion and called
it a universal religion. Indeed, Hindu philosophy by Ramakrishna could
be regarded as that expounded by him to serve humanity of the changing
world. Shri Ramakrishna is, therefore, rightly regarded by Hindus, great
philosophers and thinkers of the word, who have studied the lives and
works of Shri Ramakrishna and his disciples and others as the incarnation
of Rama. the truth and Krishna· the love, born in Dakshineswar as great
saint, not only to save Hindu religion from its extinction, but to rejuvenate
it with the message of Vedanta that 'service to man is service to God', calls
for our acceptance without any hesitation. [787-F-H, 788-A)
F
G
6. That Swami Vivekananda changed his views on religion in his
latter years, having been influenced by the West, even if true, it is incon·
ceivable that the same can have the effect of Shri Ramakrishna himself
bringing up a religion of his own according to the subsequent thinking of
Swami Vivekananda. On the contrary, what becomes obvious and evident H
750
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
from the exortations of Swami Vivekananda himself; what the proclaimed
to the world was that it is Vedanta and Vedanta alone that can become the
universal religion of man and it is Hindu religion alone that is fitted to
that role, in that, Hindu religion being inclusive and broad enough to
include all the ideals of all religions in the world was indeed, the universal
B
religion. Hence, to say that there came into existence Ramakrishna religion
- a universal religion, apart and distinct from Hindu religion would, again
be travesty of truth and reality. (788-D-F]
Shastri Yagnapuntshdasji and Ors. v. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya and
Anr., AIR (1966) SC 1119 and Commissioner, Hindu Religion Endowments,
C Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thi1tha Swaminar of Sri Shinu· Mutt, [1954] SCR
1005, relied on.
Davis v. Benson, 133 US 342, cited.
G.M. Jagtiani, Hinduism by Swami Vivekananda and His Call to the
D Nation, referred to.
E
7. The persons belonging to or owing allegiance to Ramakrishna
Mission or Ramakrishna Math as followers of of Ramakrishna, form a
religious denomination in Hindu religion. As a necessary concomitant
thereof, they have a fundamental right of establishing and maintaining
institutions for a charitable purpose under Article 26(a) of the Constitution of India, subject, of course, to public order, morality and health
envisaged in that very Article. (791-C]
8. Persons who claim to belong to religious denomination envisaged
F
under Article 26 of the Constitution can succeed in such claim only when
they fulfil or satisfy the tests viz. (i) a collection of individuals who have a
system of belief with regard to their conducive spiritual well-being; (ii) a
common organisation; and (iii) a definite name. No good reason in shown
for not accepting the view of the Division Bench on the point that Ramakrishna Mission of Ramakrishna Math is 'a religious denomination'.
G Hence, it has rightly been held by the Division Bench of the High Court
that followers of Ramakrishna, who are a collection of individuals, who
adhere to a system of beliefs as conducive to their spiritual well-being, have
organised themselves collectively and who have an organisation of definite
name as Ramakrishna Math or Ramakrishna Mission could be regarded
H as a religious denomination within Hindu religion. (789-F-G, 790-B, G]
•
BRAMCHARISIDHESWARBHA!v.STATE
751
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. S1i A
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shintr Math, [1954] SCR 1005 and
Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta Etc. v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta
& Anr., [1984] 1 SCR 447, relied on.
9. The High Court should not have decided on the general question
whether educational institutions established and maintained by religions
denomination including those established and maintained by Ramakrishna Mission for general education get the protection of Article 26(a) of the
Constitution when that question in a general form, was not really at issue
before them. Therefore, the views expressed on the question shall, ought
B
to be treated as non est and the question is left open to be decided in proper C
case, where snch question really arises and all the parties who might be
concerned with it are afforded adequate opportnnity to have their say in
the matter. So also, question of directing the West Bengal Government
because of the West Bengal Act of 1975 and the West Bengal Act of 1978,
to constitute governing body in 'standard pattern' of sponsored college D
envisaged under its Memo dated 18th April, 1978 in respect of Ramakrishna Mission College, cannot arise. [792-E-F, ,796-C]
10. The State Government has excepted the Ramakrishna M_ission
College at Rahra in the matter of constituting of a Governing Body on
standard pattern for the obvious reason that constituting such a governing E
body for a college like Ramakrishna Mission College which was all through
allowed to have a governing body constituted by Ramakrishna Mission
which had built the College on its land conceding to the request made in -
that behalf by the State Government itself on the initiation of Central
Government, may not be just. Thus when Ramakrishna Mission College
F
had come to be built, established and managed by the Ramakrishna
Mission, it is difficult to think that the High Court was not right in holding
that the Government shonld not be directed by issue of a mandamus, to
constitute a governing body for the Ramakrishna Mission College on
standard pattern taking recourse to the West Bengal Act of 1975 and the G
West Bengal Act of 1978 although for its own reasons. Therefore, in the
peculiar fact• and circumstances in which Ramakrishna Mission College
at Rahra was established on Ramakrishna Mission's land and allowed to
be administered by the Ramakrishna Mission through its own Governing
Body, it is felt that interests of justice may suffer by directing the State
Government to constitute its own governing body on standard pattern of H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
the usual sponsored colleges, as prayed for by the writ petitioners. However, the views expressed by this Court in the matter shall not come in the
way of the State Government to change their earlier arrangement with the
Ramakrishna Mission in the matter of governance of the Ramakrishna
Mission College, if no objective considerations such change becomes necesB
c
sary in the larger interests of students, teachers and other employees of
that College and is so permitted by law. [795-D-H, 796-A)
Siddarajbhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1963) SC 540, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4434A34D of 1986 Etc. Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.85 of the Calcutta High
Court in F.M.A.T. Nos. 13, 42, 270 & 490 of 1984.
Shanti Bhushan, Tapas Ray, A.K. Ganguli, P.P. Rao, Dhruv Kr.
D Mukherjee, H. Puri, S.K. Puri, Raj Kumar Gupta for Rajesh, Dilip Sinha,
J.R. Das for Sinha and Das, Indra Makwana, V.B. Joshi, Umesh Bhagwat,
Alok Singh, Rathin Das, Abhijit Sengupta, A.O. Sikti, A.K. Chakravarti,
A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Chaktavarty, Bijan Kumar Ghosh,
P.P. Choudhary and R.K. Gupta for the appearing parties.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
VENKATACHALA, J. The sustainability of the common judgment of
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court rendered in appeals preferred
against the order of dismissal of a Writ Petition by a learned single Judge
of the same High Court by which the claim of the followers of Ramakrishna
that an educational institution established and administered by their
Ramakrishna Mission receives protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India being an educational institution established and administered in exercise of their fundamental right as a minority based on
religion and under Article 26( a) of the Constitution of India being an
G educational institution established and maintained in exercise of their
fundamental right as a religious denomination or a section thereof, is
upheld, since arises for our consideration in the present appeals filed
against that judgment, all of them could be disposed of by this judgment.
As the writ petition filed in the High Court, which has led to the
H present appeals related to Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Centenary
BRAMCHARISIDI-IESWAR BI-IAiv. STATE [VENKATACI-IAI.A,J.) 753
College at Rahra - 'Ramakrishna Mission College', established and adA
ministered by Ramakrishna Mission, it would be advantageous to refer to
material facts relating to establishment and administration of that College
and the controversies thereto which led to the filing of the writ petition,
and ultimately the present appeals, for a proper apprisal and appreciation
of the points arising for our consideration in deciding the present appeals.
Such facts are briefly these:
B
By letter dated 19th July, 1961, the Secretary, Education Department
of Government of West Bengal informed Swami Punnyananda Maharaj of
Ramakrishna Mission Boys' Home of Ramakrishna Mission at Rahra of
the willingness of Government of India for granting rupees two lakhs for
C
construction of a college building on a suitable site at Rahra to be made
available by Ramakrishna Mission and of the willingness of the Chief
Minister to meet the additional cost of construction of such college building from funds of State Government, requested him to communicate the
acceptance by Ramakrishna Mission of the proposal and further prepare D
plans and estimated cost of college building early. On Ramakrishna
Mission's acceptance of the said proposal Government of West Bengal,
issued Memo dated 27th October, 1961, intimating its Director of Public
Instrnction of Governor's approval for setting up a three year degree
college under the auspices of Ramakrishna Mission Boys' Home at Rahra
at its site at an estimated cost of Rs. 7,25,000 to be borne by the State E
Government and Government of India. Thereafter, by a letter dated 25th
April, 1962 the Deputy Secretary to Government of West Bengal addressed
to Registrar, Calcutta University intimated him of the three year degree
college to be set up at Rahra under the auspices of Ramakrishna Mission
and its readiness to manage the college through a Governing Body to be F
constituted by it. In turn, by another letter dated 29th August, 1962, the
Director of Public Instruction intimated to the Registrar, Calcutta University that the said college was being inaugurated under the auspices of
Ramakrishna Mission Boys' Home and will function as a sponsored college
with financial assistance from the State Government and Union Government and requested for obtaining University's affiliation of the college upto
B.A/B.Sc. courses and approval of College Governing Body constituted by
G
the Ramakrishna Mission. Calcutta University being of the view, that it was
quite fitness of thing that the college was being ushered into existence in
commeration of the birth centenary of Vivekananda, who contributed so
much to uplift the down-trodden and the building up of national character H
754
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
and education, npt only granted affiliation to the proposed College, but
also accorded approval to Governing Body of that College as constituted
by Ramakrishna Mission. Thereafter, Governing Body of the College as
constituted by Ramakrishna Mission from time to time with special approval obtained from the State Government and the University, continued
B to administer the affairs of that College. Ramakrishna Mission College did
not, therefore, have a Governing Body which was modelled on the common
pattern of governing bodies of sponsored colleges as becomes clear even
from Government Memo dated 16th January, 1971 conveying approval of
Governor for common pattern of Governing bodies of sponsored colleges,
for it said, that the approval given by Governor regarding composition of
C the governing bodies of the sponsored colleges, did not include Governing
Bodies of sponsored colleges run by Missionary Societies on the basis of
agreement with respective Missions. Indeed, the letter of Deputy Secretary
to Government referring to the said Memo had clarified that the Memo in
its application to specially sponsored colleges such as colleges managed by
D Ramakrishna Mission, Christian Order Missionary Society, Brahma Samaj,
Trust Deed etc. would be modified by Government according to exigencies
by mutual agreement with Mission/Society/parties concerned. In his Memo
dated 18th April, 1978, the Deputy Secretary to Government of West
Bengal also clearly stated that the Government had been feeling the
E
necessity of revising the existing pattern for composition of Governing
Bodies of Government sponsored colleges on a "standard pattern" excepting where the college concerned had a special constitution on the basis of
Trust Deed or where the college was run by the Missionary Societies on
the basis of agreement with respective Missions.
F
When according to the said Memo dated 18th April, 1978, the
existing Governing Body of the Ramakrishna Mission College was carrying
on the governance of that college, that on 12.8.1980 by a letter of even date,
Principal of that college Swami Jitananda resigned his post. This situation
led to the appointment of Shivamoyananda who was till then head of
Ramakrishna Mission Vidya Mandir, Bellurmath, as Principal of RamakG rishna Mission College.
Teachers Council of the Ramakrishna Mission College who were
agitated by new Principal's appointment, by resorting to strike, took over
the management of the College and prevented the newly appointed PrinH cipal Shivamoyananda from functioning as Principal but also made Prof.
BRAMCHARISIDHESWARBHA!v. STATE[VENKATACHALA,J.] 755
A.R. Das Gupta to function as the in-charge Principal of that College. This A
untoward situation led Ramakrishna Mission and the Secretary of the
Governing Body of the College institute a civil suit - Suit No. 111 of 1980
in 10th Court of Sub-Judge, Alipore seeking a declaration that the
functioning of A.R.Das Gupta as Principal and the functioning of 14
professors in the college was illegal.
When the affairs of the said Ramakrishna Mission College stood as
above, that on 18.12.1980 the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 4937 of 1985,
by filing C.O. No. 12837(W) of 1980 in the High Court sought for issue of
B
(i) a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Government of West
Bengal to reconstitute the Governing Body of the Ramakrishna Mission C
College according to standard pattern for Governing Bodies of sponsored
colleges as per Government Memo No. 752-Edn (CS}/C.S. 30-3/77 dated
18th April, 1978 (ii) a writ declaring that the Ramakrishna Mission College
is governed by W.B. Act of 1975 and W.B. Act of 1978; (iii) a writ in the
nature of quo warranto restraining Swami Shivmoyananda as Principal of D
Ramakrishna Mission College and other incidental writs.
The grant of prayers sought for in the said writ petition was resisted
by Ramakrishna Mission, Secretary of the Ramakrishna Mission College
and Shivamoyananda, who were respondents in that writ petition and are
respondents in present Civil Appeal No. 4937 of 1985 and other civil E
appeals.
However, as three notices were sent by the Calcutta University to
Ramakrishna Mission during the pendency of th.<;. writ petition for
reconstituting the Governing Bodies of the Ramakrishna Mission ResidenF
tial College, Narendrapur, Ramakrishna Mission Siksha Mandir, Howrah
and Ramakrishna Mission Vidya Mandir, Howrah, the sustainability of
those notices was questioned by Ramakrishna Mission, by filing an Interlocutory Application in the writ petition itself.
A learned single Judge of the High Court although dismissed the said G
Writ Petition, quashed the said three notices issued by the Calcutta University to the Ramakrishna Mission for reconstituting the Governing Bodies
of its three colleges, on his view that the Ramakrishna Mission College and
other colleges of Ramakrishna Mission since established and administered
by Ramakrishna Mission, comprised of the followers of Ramakrishna H
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
religion, being protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, the
provisions in W.B. Act of 1975 and the W.B. Act of 1978, did aot apply,
However, he did not accept the claim of the Ramakrishna Mission that
Article 26( a) of the Constitution enabled the Ramakrishna Mission to
establish educational institutions as a religious denomination. The writ
B
petitioners, who were aggrieved against the order of dismissal of their writ
petition by the learned single Judge and of quashing of the notices for
reconstituting of Governing Bodies of certain colleges of the Ramakrishna
Mission preferred a writ appeal against that order. The State of West
Bengal and Calcutta University who also felt aggrieved by the said order
of learned single Judge, filed separate writ appeals questioning its correctC ""'"· A Division Bench of the High Court, which clubbed those writ
appeals and heard them together, dismissed all of them by a common
judgment having expressed its agreement with the learned single Judge that
the Ramakrishna Mission comprised of followers of Ramakrishna, being a
minority based on religion, was protected under Article 30(1) of the
D Constitution, and also its disagreement with the view that Article 26(a) of
the Constitution did not protect the Ramakrishna Mission from establishing educational institutions as a religious denomination. Dismissal of
the appeals was also based on the view of the Division Bench that both the
W.B. Act of 1975 and the W.B. Act of 1978 since did not coniain any
E
F
G
express provision including their application to educational institutions
established and maintained by the Ramakrishna Mission, those Acts would
be inapplicable, to the Ramakrishna Mission College and other colleges of
Ramakrishna Mission for to hold otherwise would amount to infringement
of the rights enjoyed by the Ramakrishna Mission under Article 26(a) and
26(b) of the Constitution. However, it left open the question of legality of
otherwise of the direction contained in the notices issued by the Calcutta
University to the Ramakrishna Mission for recon.,titution of Governing
Bodies of the Ramakrishna Mission Residential College, Narendrapur,
Ramakrishna Mission Siksha Mandir, Howrah and Ramakrishna Mission
Vidya Mandir, Howrah.
The present appeals are those filed against the said judgment of the
Division Bench by the appellants in the writ appeals before the High Court
and by interested persons who have filed the appeals against the same
judgment by permission of this Court, though they were not parties in the
H proceedings of the Writ Petition in the High Court and in the writ appeals
•
BRAMCHARJSIDHESWAR BHA!v. STATE [VENKATACHALAJ.] 757
in the same Court.
We have heard oral arguments of learned counsel appearing fur
respective par6es in these appeals. We have also carefully read the written
submissions filed by learned counsel in these appeals on behalf of their
respective parties.
The points arising for our consideration for deciding these appeals in
the light of the material facts adverted to as leading to the filing of them and
the oral arguments of learned counsel made on behalf of their respective
parties in these appeals and also the written submissions filed by them on
behalf of their respective parties in these appeals, would be the following:
A
B
c
1.
Can the citizens of India residing in the State of West Bengal
who are .professing, practising or propagating the religious
doctrines a'nd teachings of Ramakrishna and have become his
followers, claim to belong to a minority based on Ramakrishna
religion which was distinct and different from Hindu religion and D
as such entitled to the fundamental right under Article 30(1) of
the Constitution of India, of establishing and administering
educational institutions of their choice through Ramakrishna
Mission or its branches in that State'!
2.
Do persons belonging to or owing allegiance to Ramakrishna E
Mission belong to a religious denomination or any section thereof
as would entitle them to claim the fundamental rights conferred
on either of them under Article 26 of the Constitution of India?
3. If persons belonging to or owing allegiance to Ramakrishna
Mission is a religious denomination or a section thereof, have
they the fundamental right of establishing and maintaining institutions for a charitable purpose under Article 26(1) of the
Constitution of India.
F
4.
If Ramakrishna Mission as a religious denomination or a section G
thereof establishes and maintains educational institutions, can
such institutions be regarded as institutions established and maintained for charitable purpose within the meaning of Article 26(a)
of the Constitution of India?
5.
Is Ramakrishna Mission College at Rahra established and mainH
758
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
tained by Ramakrishna Mission and if so, will the constitution of
its governing body by the Government of West Bengal amounts
to infringement of Ramakrishna Mission's fundamental right to
establish and maintain an educational institution under Article
26( a) of the Constitution of India?
B
6.
Can the court direct the West Bengal Government because of
W.B. Act 1975 and W.B. Act 1978, to constitute governing body
on 'standard pattern' of sponsored college envisaged under its
Memo dated 18th April, 1978 in respect of Ramakrishna Mission
College when that memo itself says that colleges established and
C
maintained by Missions on the basis of agreements cannot be
treated as sponsored colleges for the purpose of constituting
governing bodies for them on a 'standard pattern'.
Before taking up the above points of consideration, we may advert
to the views of this Court expressed in some of its decisions on matters,
D such as Hindu religion, religious denomination, to our advantage:
E
F
G
H
A Constitution Bench of this Court in the Commissioner, Hindu
Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri
Shimr Mutt, [1954] SCR 1005 speaking through Mukherjee, J. (as he then
was), who spoke for the Bench while holding that certain provisions of the
Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 imposing
tax on religious trusts and institutions were ultra vires Article 26 of the
Constitution of India, adverted to the meaning of the word 'religion' and
the expression 'religious denomination' found in the Constitution of India,
thus:
" .... The word 'religion' has not been defined in the Constitution
and it is a term which is hardly susceptible of any rigid definition.
In an American case Davis v. Benson, 133 US at 342 it has been
said 'that term 'religion' has reference to one's views of bis relation
to his Creator and to the obligations they impose of reverence for
His Being and character and of obedience to His will. It is often
confounded with cultus of form or worship of a particular sect, but
is distinguishable from the latter.' We do not think that the above
definition can be regarded as either precise or adequate. Articles
25 and 26 of our Constitution are based for the most part upon
article 44(2) of the Constitution of Eire and we have: great doubt
•
BRAMCHARI SIDHESWAR BHA!v. STATE [VENKATACHALA,J.] 759
whether a definition of 'religion' as given above could have been A
in the minds of our constitution when makers when they framed
the constitution. Religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic. There
are well known religions in India like Buddhism and Jainism which
do not believe in God or in any Intelligent First Cause: A religion B
undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which
are regarded by those who profess that religion as conductive to
their spiritual well being, but it would not be correct to say that
religion is nothing else but a doctrine or belief. A religion may not
only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it
might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of C
worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion, and these
forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and
. dress."
Then dealing with the meaning and connotation of the expression D
'religious denomination' and whether a Math could come within this expression, it has been observed thus:
" .. The word 'denomination' has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary to mean 'a collection of individuals classed together under
the same name: a religious sect or body having a common faith
E
and organisation and designated by a distinctive name.' It is well
known that the practice of setting up Maths as centres of theological teaching was started by Shri Sankaracharya and was followed
by various teachers since then. After Sankara, came a galaxy of
religious teachers and philosophers who founded the different
F
sects and sub-sects can certainly be called a religious denomination, as it is designated by a distinctive name, - in many cases it is
the name of the founder, - and has a common faith and common
spiritual organisation. The followers of Ramanuja, who are known
by the name of Shri Vaishnabas, undoubtedly constitute a religious G
denomination; and so do the followers of Madhwacharya and other
religious teachers. It is a fact well established by tradition that the
eight Udipi Maths were founded by Madhwacharya himself and
the trustees and the beneficiaries of these Maths profess to be
followers of the t'acher. The High Court has found that the Math
in question is in charge of the Sivalli Brahmins who constitute a H
A
B
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP.1 S.C.R.
section of the followers of Madhwacharya. As Article 26 contemplates not merely a religious denomination but also a section
thereof, the Math or the spiritual fraternity represented by it can
legitimately come within the purview of this article."
In Shastri Yagnapurushdasji and Others v. Muldas Bh1mdardas
Vaishya and Another, AIR (1966) SC 1119 a Constitution Bench of this
Court was required to consider the question whether the Bombay High
Court was right in holding that Swami Narayan Sampradaya sect to which
the appellants before the Court belonged is not a religion distinct and
separate from the Hindu religion. In that context, Gajendragadkar, C.J.
C who spoke for the Bench considered the questions elaborately as to who
are Hindus and what are the broad features of Hindu religion, thus:
D
E
F
G
H
"(27) Who are Hindus and what are the broad features of
Hindu religion, that must be the first part of our enquiry in dealing
with the present controversy between the parties. The historical
and etymological genesis of the word 'Hindu' has given rise to a
controversy amongst indo-logists; but the view generally accepted
by scholars appears to be that the word 'Hindu' is derived from
the river Sindhu otherwise known as Indus which flows from the
Punjab. 'That part of the great Aryan race', says Monier Williams,
'which immigrated from Central Asia, through the mountain passes
into India, settled first in the districts near the river Sindhu (now
called the Indus). The Parisian pronounced this word Hindu and
named their Aryan brethren Hindus. The Greeks, who probably
gained their first ideas of India Persians, dropped the hard aspired,
and called the Hindus 'Indoi'.
(28) The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. VI, has
described 'Hinduism' as the title applied to that form of religion
which prevails among the vast majority of the present population
of the Indian empire (p.686). As Dr. Radhakrishnan has observed:
'The Hindu civilization is so called, since its original founders or
earliest followers occupied the territory drained by the Sindhu (the
Indus) river system corresponding to the North-West Frontier
Province and the Punjab. This is recorded in the Rig Veda, the
oldest of the Vedas, the Hindu scriptures which give their name
to this period of Indian history. The people on the Indian side of
·.
BRAMCHARISiDHESWAR BHAiv. STATE [VENKATACHALA,J.] 761
the Sindhu were called Hindu by the Persian and the later western A
invaders [The Hindu View of Life by Dr. Radhakrishnan, p.12).
That is the genesis of the word 'Hindu'.
(29) When we think of the Hindu religion, we find it difficult,
if not impossible, to define Hindu religion or even adequately
describe it. Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion
does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one God;
it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any
B
one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious
rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to. satisfy the
narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly C
be described as a way of life and nothing more.
(30) Confronted by this difficulty, Dr. Radhakrishnan realised
that 'to many Hinduism seems to be a name without any content.
Is it a museum of beliefs, a medley or rites, or a mere map, a D
geographical expression [The Hindu View of Life by Dr.