# DIGYADARSAN RA.JENDRA RAMDASS.Jl VARU v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR

- **Citation:** [1970] 1 S.C.R. 103
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-03-26
- **Bench:** $Hah, V. Ramaswami, Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/digyadarsan-ra-jendra-ramdass-jl-varu-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-4717
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and liindu Relinious Institutions anl. ·
Endowments Act (11 of 1966), s.,, 46 and 41-lf violative
of Arts.
14, 19(1)(/), 25(1) and 26(b) and (d) of the Constitution of Indill.
On November 18, 1968, fourteen char¥es under '· 46(1)
of the
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, were preferred against the petitioner \Vho was. the Matha ..
dhipathi . of Sri Swami Hathiramji
Math,
Tirupathi-Thirumalla.
Under
'· 46(3) he was suspended from his office pending enquiry under s. 46(2),
and under s. 47, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department,
was directed to attend to the day-to-day administration of the Math and
it• endowments temporarily until the disposal of the inquiry. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of ss. 46 and 47 as violative
of his fundamental rights under Arts. 14, !9(1)(f), 25(1) and 26(b) and
( d), in a petition under A rt. 3 2.
HELD : (I) A mathadhipathi is the head and superior of a spiritual
fraternity and the purpose of a math is to encourage and foster 'Spiritual
training by the maintenance of a competent line of teachers who could
impart religious instruction to the disciples and followers of the math and
ro strengthen the doctrines of the particular school or order of which they
prdfess to be adherents.
By virtue of his office he is under an obligation
to di!charge his duties as a trustee and is answerable as such.. He enjoys
large poweri for the benefit of the institution of which he is the head.
He is to incur expenditure for the math. that is, for carrying on religious
worship, for the disciples, and for maintaining the dignity of his office.
If he cannot perform his duties either as a spiritual or a temporal head or
cannot properly administer or manage
the trust property
or has
been
guilty of breach of trust o·r wilful default or lead:; an immoral life, action
can be taken against him under s. 46(1). The power is given to the
Commissioner to make an inquiry into or try the allegations or charges
against him and to order his removal if the charges are established. Under
s. 104 of the Act, the proceedings before the Commissioner are quasijudicial, and if- he makes an order of rem6val, it can be challenged in
a
suit in a court of law with a right of appeal to the High Court. As regards
the power to suspend under s. 46(3), the power of suspension, pending
inquiry, is a necessary and reasonable part of the procedure. If the mathadh1pathi is allowed to function during the pendency of an enquiry he may
tamper with the evidence against him and the purpose o[ the enquiry may
be defeated. There'fore, the restrictions imposed by the impugned provi-
"Sions are reasonable and in the intereo:;t of general publ;c and do nf'•
violate Arts. 14 and 19(1) (f). [109 F-G; 111 C-F; 112 B-E].
The Commissioner,
Hindu
Relit::iou'!
Endow1nents.
Mndraf; v. Sr.
Lakshmindra Thirt/1a Swnmiar of Shirur Mutt. [19541 S.C.R. 1005
end
H. H. Sudhundra Thirtha Swa1niar v. Co1n111issioner for Hindu Religiou.'
and Charitable_ Endow:nents. Mysore, [196Jl Supp. 2 S.C.R. 30~, referred·
to.
104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1970) I S.C.R
(2) Under Ari. 25(1 ), the petitioner has a fundamental right to pracfae and propagate his religion freely, but, by the Commissioner exercising his poweo under s. 4 7 or the Act, the petitioner had not been prohibited or debarred 'from professina. practisina and propagating hts religion.
He could enter the Math and exercise the fundamental right. (113 E]
(3) There is nothing in ss. 46 and 47 which
empower the Commissioner to interfere with the autonomy of the rcli~ious denomination in the
111attcr of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according
to the tenets of the religion the denomination
professes
or practises.
Neither the Commissioner nor the 1'..ssistant Commissioner who bas been
put in charge of the day-lo-day affairs
have interfered in such matters.
Therefore, there is no contravention di Art. 26(b)

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ll
DIGYADARSAN RA.JENDRA RAMDASS.Jl VARU
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
March 26, 1969
(J .. C,$HAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND AN, GROVER, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and liindu Relinious Institutions anl. ·
Endowments Act (11 of 1966), s.,, 46 and 41-lf violative
of Arts.
14, 19(1)(/), 25(1) and 26(b) and (d) of the Constitution of Indill.
On November 18, 1968, fourteen char¥es under '· 46(1)
of the
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, were preferred against the petitioner \Vho was. the Matha ..
dhipathi . of Sri Swami Hathiramji
Math,
Tirupathi-Thirumalla.
Under
'· 46(3) he was suspended from his office pending enquiry under s. 46(2),
and under s. 47, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department,
was directed to attend to the day-to-day administration of the Math and
it• endowments temporarily until the disposal of the inquiry. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of ss. 46 and 47 as violative
of his fundamental rights under Arts. 14, !9(1)(f), 25(1) and 26(b) and
( d), in a petition under A rt. 3 2.
HELD : (I) A mathadhipathi is the head and superior of a spiritual
fraternity and the purpose of a math is to encourage and foster 'Spiritual
training by the maintenance of a competent line of teachers who could
impart religious instruction to the disciples and followers of the math and
ro strengthen the doctrines of the particular school or order of which they
prdfess to be adherents.
By virtue of his office he is under an obligation
to di!charge his duties as a trustee and is answerable as such.. He enjoys
large poweri for the benefit of the institution of which he is the head.
He is to incur expenditure for the math. that is, for carrying on religious
worship, for the disciples, and for maintaining the dignity of his office.
If he cannot perform his duties either as a spiritual or a temporal head or
cannot properly administer or manage
the trust property
or has
been
guilty of breach of trust o·r wilful default or lead:; an immoral life, action
can be taken against him under s. 46(1). The power is given to the
Commissioner to make an inquiry into or try the allegations or charges
against him and to order his removal if the charges are established. Under
s. 104 of the Act, the proceedings before the Commissioner are quasijudicial, and if- he makes an order of rem6val, it can be challenged in
a
suit in a court of law with a right of appeal to the High Court. As regards
the power to suspend under s. 46(3), the power of suspension, pending
inquiry, is a necessary and reasonable part of the procedure. If the mathadh1pathi is allowed to function during the pendency of an enquiry he may
tamper with the evidence against him and the purpose o[ the enquiry may
be defeated. There'fore, the restrictions imposed by the impugned provi-
"Sions are reasonable and in the intereo:;t of general publ;c and do nf'•
violate Arts. 14 and 19(1) (f). [109 F-G; 111 C-F; 112 B-E].
The Commissioner,
Hindu
Relit::iou'!
Endow1nents.
Mndraf; v. Sr.
Lakshmindra Thirt/1a Swnmiar of Shirur Mutt. [19541 S.C.R. 1005
end
H. H. Sudhundra Thirtha Swa1niar v. Co1n111issioner for Hindu Religiou.'
and Charitable_ Endow:nents. Mysore, [196Jl Supp. 2 S.C.R. 30~, referred·
to.
104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1970) I S.C.R
(2) Under Ari. 25(1 ), the petitioner has a fundamental right to pracfae and propagate his religion freely, but, by the Commissioner exercising his poweo under s. 4 7 or the Act, the petitioner had not been prohibited or debarred 'from professina. practisina and propagating hts religion.
He could enter the Math and exercise the fundamental right. (113 E]
(3) There is nothing in ss. 46 and 47 which
empower the Commissioner to interfere with the autonomy of the rcli~ious denomination in the
111attcr of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according
to the tenets of the religion the denomination
professes
or practises.
Neither the Commissioner nor the 1'..ssistant Commissioner who bas been
put in charge of the day-lo-day affairs
have interfered in such matters.
Therefore, there is no contravention di Art. 26(b). Under Art. 26(dl, a
relipous denomination or itJ representative has the fundamental right to
administer property accordin~ to law. The provisions of s. 47 do
not
take away the right of admimstration from the hands of a reliaioU1 deno-
·mination a!logether and vest ii for all time in a person or authority who is
not entitled to exercise that riaht under the custom prevailina in the math;
nor could such power be exercbed without any j11>tlfyin1 necessity. 'lbe
aeclion deals only with a situation where there is a temporary vaca"!'r for
any (jf the reasons stated therein u
&ho because the mathadhipalht bu
been suspended pending an enquiry under 1. 46, that is, the Comminloner
can appoint some one to carry on !he administration of the math and its
.endowments only when the conditiom of s. 47 are satis8ed. (113 F-H;
114 A-DJ
In the present case,
the
Assiatant Commissioner
was appointed
becaU>e of the enquiry which was pending against the petitioner, in which,
serious charges of misappropriation and
defalcation of trust funds and
leading an immoral life were beina investigated. (114 DJ
Shirur Math case (1954] S.C.R. 1005, referred to
ORIGINAL Jua1sorcr10N: Writ Petition No. 347 of 1968.
Petition under Art. 32 of the CQDStitution of India for the
enforcement of fundamental rights.
Kanak Ghosh and B. Datta. for the appellant.
P. Ram Redd,v, A. V. V. Nair and P. Parameshwar Rao, for
the respondent.
·
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Grover, J. This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging, inter alia, the constitutionality of ss. 46 and 4 7
of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (Act No. 17 of 1966), hereinafter called the "Act" and for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus or other appropriate writs and di=tions to the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments hereinafter called the "Commissioner.", prohibiting him from ~ercis
ing his powers or taking action under the aforesata sections.
'fhe petitioner claims to be tile Mathadhipathi of Shri Swami
Hathiramji Math Tripathi-Thirumalla in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that this institution was founded several centuries ago and is one of the renowned Maths in India. Hundreds
It
R
c
D
E
F
G
H
-
-
DIGYADARSAN v. A. P. STATE (Grover, J.)
105
A
of Sadhus visit the Math throughout the Y.ear and ~t. ~ the duty
of the Mahant as its religious head to provide the V1S1tmg Sadhus
with food and shelter and to perfol1Il all religious d_uties with ·
regard to the celebration of Hindu festivals, propagatiOn ~f. the
cult of Shri Swami Hathiramji and performance of other reli~ous
functions. It is alleged that Mahant Chettandoss, the previous
incumbent died on March 18, 1962. On March 24, 1962 the
B
Commissioner took charge of the Math and its properties under
s. 53 of the Andhra Pradesh (andlfra Areas) HindiI Religious. &
Charitat>Je Endowments Act, 1951, Act No. 19 of 1951, heremafter referred to as the "Repealed Act", The petitioner filed a
suit on March 26, 1962 in the court of the Subordinate Judge,
Chittoor for a declaration· that he was the rightful successor. The
C
CommiSll1oner was imp leaded as a party to the suit. He also filed a
revisional application under s. 92 of the repealed Act to fhe State
Government.
The Government disposed of the revisional l!flPlication on June 5, 1962. It appointed tl).e petitioner as the interim Mahant subject to certain conditions which ne(ld not be
mentioned.
Before this order was made the ~titioner withdrew
0
the suit filed by him in April 1962.
DevenifraoosS, ~ho was
another claimant but who was a minor, filed a writ petition in
the High Court challenging t)le aoove order of the Government
but the same was rejected by the division Benell. Devendradoss
then filed certain suits for a declaration of his .title.
On August
22, 1964, the Commissioner made an order directing the petitioner
io show cause why the previous order appointing him as an interim
E
Mahant be not recalled.
According to the petitioner this was
done because the State Government started claiming, contrary
to the rule and custom which prevailed in the Math, that the
amounts received on account otPadakanukas (personiil offerings)
should be paid to the Government and not taken by the Mahant.
This order was challenged by the petitioner by means of a writ
F
petitiOJ:\ in the High Court. The High Court issued a stay order
which was later on clarified to mean that the State Government
was free ·to take such further action under the Act as it considered necessary. On September 9, 1965 the State Government
framed charges against the petitioner and directed him ·to furnish
~is expJanation. The petitioner was placed under suspension with
G
1IDmed1ate effect. It was further directed that the Assistant Commissioner, Tirupathi should take charge of the Math and its affairs. Meanwhile another claimant Bhagwantdoss filed a suit on
Septem~ 2?:
196~, claiming title ·to the gaddi in his own right.
The writ petition which had been file<! by the petitioner was allowed _by the High Court on November 8, 1966. · The matter ultimately came up in appeal to this Court, the judgment being
- H
reported in Secretary, Home (Endowments). Andhra Pradesh v.
Digyadarsam Rajindra Ram Dasjee('). The judgment of the High
1(1967) 3 S.C.R. 891.
L 12SupCI/69-8
•
106
SUPREME COutT REPORTS
[1970] I S.C.R.
Court was affirmed. The High Court had held that the petitioner
had succeeded to the office of the Mahant on the death of Chetandoss on March 18, 1962 in his own right. This Court cc
~urred
in that view and observed that the mere circumstance that the
Government had also passed an order appointing him as the interim Mabant could nQt take away his right to function as a
trustee on the basis of his original right.
It followed that the
Government had no jurisdiction to pass an order placing him
under suspension as that virtually amounted to a removal of the
trustee of the Math which could only be done in the manner provided by s. 52 of the repealed Act.
The Act received the assent of the President on December 6,
1966 and was enforced with effect from January 27, 1967. On
May 30, 1967 the petitioner filed a petition under Art. 226 of
the Constitution in the High Court for declaring the present impunged provisions of the Act as ultra vlres. That petition was
dismissed in limine as premature.
An appeal to the Letters Patent
bench failed. On coming to know that certain orders were going
to be passed against the petitioner whereby charges on various
matters were to be preferred and an inquiry made and that the
suspension of the petitioner from Mahantship was going to be
ordered, the present petition was filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution in October 1968. In this petition, apart from challenging
the provisions of the Act a case of ma/a fide action has been
sought to be made out against the respondent. In the order which
was made by the Gove'111Ilent on November 18, 1968, as many as
14 charges have bet-~ ·eferred against the petitioner and his suspension has been du., 0rdered. The Assistant Commissioner Endowments Department has been directed to attend to the day-today administration of the Math temporarily and its Endowments
until the disposal of the inquiry .
Now the Act has been enacted to consolidate and amend the
law relating to the armmistration and governance of charitable
and Hindu religious institutions and endowments in the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
Chapter I contains the definitions of various
expressions used in the Act including the word "Commissioner".
Chapter II provides for the appointment of Commissioner, Joint
Commissioners etc., and ~ives their powers and functions. Chapter III deals with administration and management of charitable
and Hindu religious institutions and endowments.
Chapter IV
provides for registration of such institutions and endowments.
Section 42 in Chapter V defines the word ''mathadhipathi" to mean
any person whether known as mohant or by any other name,
in whom the administration of a math or specific endowment attached to a math are vested. Sections 46 and 47 are in the following terms :
"46. (I) The Commissioner may suo motu or on an
A
B
c
0 -
E
·.
F
G
II
-
B
c
-
1)
I'
G
H
-
DIGYADARSAN v. A. P. STATE (Grover, !.)
10 7
application of two or more p~sons having ~ter~t, initiate proceedings for removmg a mathadh1path1 or !l
trustee of a specific endowment attached to a math, 1f
h&-
(a) is of unsound mind;
(b) is suffering from any physical or mental def~
or infirmity which renders him unfit to be a mathadhipathi or such trustee;
(c) has ceased to profess the Hindu religion or the
tenets of the math;
( d) has been sente11ced for any offence involving
moral turpitude, such sentence not having been reversed;
.
(e) is guilty of breach of trust or misappropriation
in respect of any of the properties of the math;
(f) commits persistent and wilful default in the exercise of his powers or performance of his functions under
this Act;
(g) violates any of the restrictions imposed or practices enjoined by the custom, usage or the tenels of the
math, in relation to his personal conduct, such as celibacy, renunciation and the like;
(h) leads an immoral life.
(2) The Commissioner shall frrunevlt charge on any
of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) agamst the
mathadhipathi or trustee concerned and give him an
opportunity of meeting such charge, of testing the evidence adduced and of adducing evidence in his favour.
After considering the evidence adduced and othet material before him, the Commissioner may, by order exonerate the mathadhipathi or trustee, or remove him.
Every such order shall state the charge framed against the
. mathadhipathi or the .trustee, his explanati0tn and the
finding on such charge together with the reasons therefor;
Provided that in ·the case of a math or specific endowment attached thereto whose annual income exceeds
rupees one lakh, the order of removal passed by the
Commissioner against the mathadhipati or trustee shall
not take effect unless it is confirnled by the Government,
(3) Pending the passing of an order under sub-section
(2) the Commissioner may suspend the m:athadhft)athi
· or the trustee.
,
108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 1 S.C.R,
(4) (a) Any mathadhipathi or trustee aggrieved by
an enquiry in this behalf that an arrangement for the
(2) may, within ninety days from the date of receipt of
such order, institute a suit in the court against such order.
(b) An appeal shall lie to the High Court within
ninety days from the date of a decree .or order of the
court in such suit.
4 7. (I) Where a temporary vacancy occurs in the
office of the mathadhipathi and there is dispute In regard
to the right of succession to such office, or where the
mathadhipathi is a minor ana has no guardian fit and
willing to act as guardian, or where the mathadhipathi
is under suspension under sub-section (3) of section 46,
the Commissioner shall, if he is satisfied after· making
an inquiry in this bchaH that an arrangement for
the
administration of the math and its endowments or of the
specific endowments, as the case may be, is necessary,
make such arrangement, as he thinks fit until the
disabilty of the mathadhipathi ceases or another matha·
dhipathi succeeds to the office, as the case may be.
(2) In making any such arrangement, the Commissioner shall have due regard to the claims, if any, of
the disciples of the math.
(3) ....•...•......•••••.•••• "
Section 83 confers powers on the Government to call for and
examine the record of the Commissioner ........•. in respect of
any proceedings not being a proceeding in respect of which a
surt or an appeal or application or reference to a court is provided
by the Act, to satisfy themselves as to the regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision
or order passed therein and if, in any case, it appears to the
Government that such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for consideration they may pass orders accordingly.
Under s. 104 where a Commissioner ..... .
makes an enquiry or hears an appeal under the Act, the inquiry has to be made and the appeal has to be heard as nearly
as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits or the
hearing of appeals and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act
and the Indian Oaths Act have also been made applicable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the constitutionality of s. 46 although he has sought to read s. 47 along with
. it so as to establish that tile combined effect of the provisions con-
•
c
D
...
•
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
G
H
DIGYADARSAN v. A. P. STATE (Grover, 1.)
109
tained in both the sections would be hit by Arts. 14, 19(1)(f), 25,
26 and 31 of the Cov.stitution.
Before the submissions, which
have been made, are examined reference may be made to The
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri
Lakshmindra Thz'rtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt(') in which the
constitutionality of various provisions of the repealed Act was
challenged. That case related to the Shirur Math which was one
of the 8 maths situate at Udipi in the district of South Kanara.
The Hindu Religious Endowments Board functioning under the
Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1927 had taken action
to frame a scheme for the administratfon of the affairs of the
math. The challenge in the courts was confined to the constitutional validity of the repealed Act.
B. K. Mukherjea, J., (as he
then was) dealt exhaustively with the rights of a Mahant to hold
office as well as enjoy the property of the institution. The following observations at pp. 1019, 1020 are noteworthy:
"As said above, the iiigredients of both office and
property, of duties and personru interest are blended
together in the rights of a Mahant and the Mahant has
the right to enjoy this property or beneficial intere8t so
long as he is entitled to hold his office. To take away
this beneficial interest and leave him merely to the;lischarge of his duties would be to destroy his character
as a Mah ant altogether.
It is true that the beneficial
interest which he enjoys is appurtenant to his duties and
as he is in charge of a public institution, reasonable
restrictions caμ always'be placed upon his rights m the
interest of the public. But the restrictions would cease
to be reasonable if they are cafculated to mike him unfit to discharge the duties which he is called upon to
discharge. A Mahant's duty is not simply to manage the
temporalities of a Math. He is the head and superior
of spritual fratemrity and the purpose of Math is to encourage and foster spiritual training by maintenance of
:1 comp~tent line of t.ea~hers who cowd impart religious
mstructions to the d1sc1ples and followers of the Math
and try to strengthen the doctrines of the particular
sch.ool or order, of which they profess to be adherents.
This purpose cannot be served if the restrictions are such
l!8 would bring the Mathadhipathi down to the level of
a servant under the State department. It is from this
standpoint that the reasonableness of the restrfctions
should be judged."
It was held that the Mahant was entitled to claim the protection
of Art. 19(1)(f). The same Shirur Math figured in another case
(I) (1954) S. C. R. 1005.
110
SUPREME COUllT REPORTS
[1970] 1 S.C.R.
which came up to this Court and the decision in which is rep<l{t-
.A.
ed in H. H. Sudhundra Thirtha Swamiar v.
Commissioner for
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Mysore('). There
the constitutionality of s. 52(1)(f) of the repealed Act, as amended, was unsuccessfully assailed. The scheme of that section was
similar to s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Commissioner or any two or more persons having interest or having obB
tained the consent in writing of the Commissioner could institute
a suit in the court to obtain a decree for removing a trustee of a
math or a specific endowment attached to a math for any one or
more reasons given in clauses (a) to (f) which were similar to
clauses (a) to (0 of sub-s. (1) of s. 46 of the Act. Whereas previously. the Commissioner could only institute a suit in a court, he
C
has now been empowered under the Act by s. 46 io initiate proceedings himself for removing a mathadhipathi on the grounds
mentioned in clauses (a) to (h). Clauses (g) and (h) are new and
sub-s. (2) _gives the procedure for making the inquiry.
If the
matnadhipathi is aggrieved by the order made by the Commissioner, he has been given the right to institute a suit against such
D
order in the court by sub-s. ( 4). The difference, in other words,
is tha_t previously the removal could be ordered only by the court
but' under s. 46 the Commissioner can order the removal after
following the procedure-laid down and his order is final except
that it can be challenged by means of a suit by the mathadhipathi.
It also requires confirmation by the Government where the annual
income of the math exceeds rupees one lakh. An additional power
E
has been conferred on the Commissioner by sub-s. (3) to suspend
the mathadhipathi pending the passing Of an .order under sub-s.
(2).
The view which was taken in the above case was that s. 52(1)
(f) of the repealed Act did not in effect seek to cut down the
authority of the Mahan! which was traditionally recognized and
that the said provision which authorised the inStitution of a suit
for removal of a Mahant where he was found to have wasted the
property of the math or applied such funds or property for purposes wholly unconnected with the institution did not amount to
an unreasonable restriction upon the exercise of the rights of the
Mahan!.
On behalf of the petitioner a strenuous attempt has
been made to show that s. 46 of the Act is quite different from
its counterpart contained in the repealed Act, namely, s. 52 and
that the powers which have been conferred are clearly violative
of the fundamental right to hold the office of the Mahant as
also the property ol the math. In H. H. Sudhundra Thirtha Swamiar:s<') c~ it has been e~ph!15ised th~t the Mahant by virtue
of hts office ts under an obhgatton to dtseharge the duties as a
(I) [1963) Supp, 2 S. C.R. 302.
p
G
B
-
.-
A
B
c
-
D
E
F
G
H
DIGYADARSAN v. A. P. STATE (Grover, J.)
11 l
trustee and is answerable as such., He enjoys large pow~rs fo_r the
benefit of the institution of which he is the head. He ts to mcur
expenditure f<;>r _the math i.e. fo~ c~rrying on ~he. religio1;J_S worship for the d1sc1ples and for mamtammg the d1gmty of his office
but the property is attached to the office at:d th~ Mahant ca~ot
incur expenditure,.for personal l~ury or O~Je~ts 1~co~g~ou~ with
his position as a Maha~t. Keepmg all this m v1~w 1~ JS difficult
to see how the provisions of s. 46 would be v10lat1ve of Art.
19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The grounds on which his removal
as mathadhipathy can be ordered have been specifically provided
and no exception has been or can be taken to them. The main
attar.k is based on the power given to the Commissioner instead
of the court to make an inquiry into or try the allegations or
charges against the Mahant ;md order ms removal if suc.)1 charges
are estabhshed. It is not possible to see how a procedural change
of this nature can be regarded as contravening either Art. 19(1)(f)
or Art. 14 of the Constitution which is the other Article which
has beeμ pressed into service.
The procedure which has been
laid down makes all the proceedings before the Commissioner
quasi-judicial.
This is particularly so when the provisions of
s. 104 of the Act are kept in view.
Moreover if any order of
removal is made that can be challenged in a court of law and
there is a further right of appeal to the High Court. Learned
com.sel for the petitioner had finally to build his arugment on
the provisions of sub-s. (3) which give power to the Commissioner
to suspend the mathadhipathi during the pendency of an inquiry
and before any order in the matter of removal is made:. It is
pointed out that such suspension would seriously interfere with
the numerous duties wnich a mathadhipathi has to perform as
the head of a spiritual fraternity. The petitioner, in this manner,
has been debarred from not only managing the institution but
also from carrying out the essential work which. according to the
tenets and custom of the fraternity he is under an obligation
to do. For instance he cannot look after the Sadhus and other '
discip~es who constantly visit the math and come for religious in·
struct10n there nor can he preside over religious functions and
other perio4ical festivities which are held in the seat of the math.
Thus, it is urged, that there is a clear violation of Art. 19(1)(£)
which guarantees the petitioner"s right to hold and enjoy the property. apart from the interference with his right to practise and
propagate religion and manage the affairs of the math in matters
of reli.gio!l which rights are guaranteed by Arts. 25 and 26 of the
Conslitut10n.
As regards Art. 19 ( 1 )( f) it has to be seen whether the restrictions which have been imposed by the impugned provisions of
the Act are reasonable and are in the interest of the general
public. There can be little or no doubt that if a mathadhipathi
~
~
112
SUPREME COUIT .REPORTS
( 1970] I S.C.R.
is of an unsound mind or suffers from any physical or mental
A
defect or infirmity or has ceased to profess Hindu religion or the
tenets of the math or if his case falls within clauses (d) to (h) of
s. 46(1) his removal would be in the interest of the general public.
A mathadhipathi cannot possibly perform his duties either as a
spiritual or a temporal head nor can be properly administer or
manage the trust property if he falls within the categories menB
honed in clauses (a) to (d) or has been guilty of breach of trust
or wilful default etc. or leads an immoral life (vide clauses (e)
to (h) of s. 46(1).
Even under the Civil Procedure Code his
removal could have been ordered in proceedings under s. 92 for
similar reasons.
The suspension of a mathadhipathi, during the inquiry, is a
necessary and reasonable part of the procedure which has been
prescribed by s. 46. If he is allowed to function during the pcndency of an inquiry the entire purpose of the enquiry might be
defeated. The mathadhipathi, may, during the pcndency of the
inquiry, do away with most of the evidence or tamper with the
books of account or otherwise commit acts of misappropriation
and defalcation in respect of the pr9pcrties of the m~th. It is
essential, therefore, in these circumstances to make a provision
for suspending him till the enquiry condudes and an order is made
either exonerating him or directing his removal.
c
On the question whether ss. 46 and 47 of the Act contravene
Articles 25 and 26, a good deal of reliance has been placed on
the observations in the first Shirur Math(') case.
Mukherjea, J.
{as he then was) delivering the judgment of the court had examined the scope of the language of Arts. 25 and 26.
It was
indicated by him that freedom of religion in our Constitution is
not confined to rrligious beliefs only; it _extends to religious practice a~ well as subject to the restrictions which the Constitution
itself has laid down.
Under Art. 26(b), therefore, -a reiigious
denomination or organisation enjoys complete autonomy in the
matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies arc essential
according to the tenets of the religion and no outside authority
has any jurisdiction to interfere with its decision in such matters.
Moreover under Art. 26(d) it is the fundamental righfof a religious denomination or its representative to administer its property
in accordance with law; an.d the law, therefore, must leave the
right of administration to the religious denomination itself subject to such restrictions and regulations as it might choose to
irn~. It was .f'!rthe~ laid down that a law whi~h takes away
the nght of adm1mstrat1on from the hands of a religious denomination altogether and vests it in any other authority would amount
to a violation of the right guaranteed under clause ( d) of Art.
(I) (19S4) Supp.
S. C. R. 1005.
D
I'
G
H
-
A
c
D
E
r
G
H
DIGYADARSAN v. A. P. STATE (Graver, 1.)
113
26. Now under s. 4 7 of the Act where a mathadhipathi is under
suspension the Commissioner can make such arrangement as he
thinks fit for the administration of the math until another mathadhipathi succeeds to the office and in making such arrangement
he ha~ to have due regard to the claims of the disciples of the
math. It is maintained on behalf of the petitioner that the appointment of Assistant Commissioner, Endowm,ents Department,
Tirupathi as the day to-day administrator of the math and its
endowment as a two-fold effect.
The first is that the complete
autonomy which a religious denomination like the math in question enjoys in the matter of observance_ of rights and ceremonies
essential to the tenets of the religion has been interfered with.
The second is that the right of administration has bef:ll1 ·altogether
taken away from the hands of the religious denomination by
vesting it in the Assis~ant Commissioner. This clearly contravenes
the provisions of clauses (b) and (d) of Art. 26 within the rule
laid down in the first Shirur Math case. By doing so in exercise
of the powers under s. 4 7 the Commissioner has also debarred
the petitioner from practising and propagating religion freely
which he is entitled to do under Art. 25(1).
The attack on the ground of violation of Art. '25(1) can be .
disposed of quite briefly.
It has nowhere been established that
the petitioner has been prohibited or debarred from professing,
practising and propagating his religion. A good deal of material
has been placed on the record to show that the entire math is
being guarded by police constables but that does not mean that
the petitioner cannot be allowed to enter the math premises and
exercise the fundamental right conferred by Art. 25(1) of the
Constitution. As regards he contraventiOlll of clauses (b) and
(d) of- Art. 26 there is nothing in ss. 46 and 47 wliich emp0wers
the Commissioner to interfere with the autonomy o"f the religious
denomination in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion the
denomination professes or practises nor has it been shown that
any such order has been made by the Commissioner or that the
Assistant Commissioner who has been p11t in charge of the day
to-day affairs is interfering in such matters. Section 4 7 of the
Act deals only with a situation where there is a temp<>rary vacancy
in the office of the mathadhipathi by reason of any dispute in
regard to the _right of succession to the office or the other reasons
stated therein as also because the mathadhpathi has oeen suspended pending an inquiry under s. 46. Its provisions do not take
away t.he right of administration from ~he hands of a religious
denomination altogether and vest it for ~imes in a person or
authority who is not entitled to exercise th
right under the customary rule and custom prevailing in the math. In the first Shirur
math case, s. 56 of the repealed Act oefore i& amendment by
I 14
SUPREME COUllT REPORTS
[1970] l S.C.R.
Act 12 of 1954 was struck down as power had been given to the
Commissioner to require the trustee to appoint a manager for the
administration of the secular affairs of the institution and the
Commissioner himself could al<;0 make the appointment.
It was
pointed out that this power could be exercised at the mere option
of the Commissioner without any justifying necessity whatsoever
and no pre-requisites like mismanagement of property or maladministration of trust funds were necessary to enable the trustee to
exercise such drastic power. The effect of the section really was
th~ the Commissioner was at liberty, at any moment, to deprive
the Mahant of his right to administer the trust property even if
there was no negligence or maladministration on his part. Such
a restriction was held to be opposed to the provisions of Art.
26 ( d) of the Constitution. Section 4 7 of the Act is not in pari
materia with s. 56 of the repealed Act. On the contrary s. 47
indicates quite clearly the conditions and situations in which the
Commissioner can appoint someone to carry on the administration of the math and its endowments. In the present case, the
Assistant Commi.ssioner has been appointed as a day to-day administrator because of the inquiry which is pending against the petitioner and in which serious charges of misappropriation and defalcation of trust funds and leading an immoral life arc being
investigated.
It cannot be said that s. 47 would be hit by Art.
- 26(d) of the Constitution as the powers under it will be exercised,
inter a/ia, when mismanagement of property or maladministration
of trust funds are involved.
Counsel for the petitioner has not made any serious attempt
to argue that in the view that we are inclined to take there would
be any contravention of Art. 31 (I) of the Constitution. He has,
however, pressed for the petitioner being allowed to take the
padakanukas which are receivable by the Maham of which he will
keep an account as was directed by this Court when disposing
of· the stay petition on December 13, 1968.
Counsel for the
respondent agrees to this and has also agreed to keep accounts
of whatever amount is spent on feeding the sadhus and on the
management of the math property. He has further given an undertaking that the inquiry which is being conducted under s. 46
of the Act will be concluded within a period of three months.
It may be made clear that the Assistant Commissioner who is in
charge of the day-to-day administration temporarily of the math
and its endowments shall be fully entitled to take necessary steps
for recovery of all debts and claims which could have been recover.
ed by the Mahant from various debtors etc.
The writ petition, however, fails and it is dismissed, but in view
of the entire circumstances we make no order as to costs.
'V.P.S.
Petition dismissed.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H