# 'f SRI SRI SRI LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU AND ORS. ETC. ETC. A v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR

- **Citation:** [1996] 1 S.C.R. 929
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-01-24
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, B.L. Hansaria
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/f-sri-sri-sri-lakshamana-yatendrulu-and-ors-etc-etc-a-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-13794
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Andhra Pradesh Chan'table and Hindu Religious Institrltions and Endowments Act. I987/Agam Shastra Pandit Se1vice Rules, 1987.
B
Ss.2(16) 2(29), 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55-MathadhipathiC
Padakanukas or other personal gifts made to Mathadhipathi as head of
institution-Managenient and adn1inistration of n1ath prope1ties-R.emoval of
Mathadhipathi-Filling of temporary and pennanent vacancies in the office
of mathadhipathi-Nomination of mathadhipathi-Power of Commissioner
to frame scheme of administration of math-Held, right of mathadhipathi to
administer and manage property endowed to math and 1ights of similar D
character are legal rights-Mathadhipathi is neither hereditary t111stee, nor a
t111stee as envisaged by s.2( 16) and s.2(29) but he is a tnLStee of math in
relation to property of math or specific endowment attached to math-Matters
relating to adniinistration of niath properties are not n1atters of religion but
are secular activities though connected with religion enjoined on
mahant-Mathadhipathi incuning disqualifications enumerated in clauses
(d} to (i) of s.53 is liable to be removed-Suspension of a mathadhipathi is
a necessa1y and reasonable pmt of procedure for removal of mathadhipathiRole of Commissioner in nomination of mathadhipathi under s.54 is minimai-Power of Commissioner to frame scheme under s.55 is not abso/ut~
None of ss.50 to 55 offend Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution of India.
Constitution of India, 1950 :
E
F
Articles 25 and 26-Freedom to practice and propagate re/igionFreedom to manage religious affairs-Sections 50 to 55 of Andhra Pradesh G
Charitable and Hindu Religious lllstitutions and Endowments Act, •
1987-Held, are not violative of Articles 25 or 26-Administration and ·
management of math/propmies are secular activities-Fastening an obligation 011 Mathadhipathi to maintain accounts of Padakanukas and other
personal gifts made to mathadhipathi does not amount to inteiference with
religion.
929
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
A
The petitioners file<i the present writ petitions under Article 32 of
B
the Constitution challenging the Validity of Ss.SO to SO of the Andhra
Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments
Act, 1987. These provisions deal with maintaining regular accounts or
receipts of Padakanukas and other gifts made to the Mathadhipathi as
head of the math, removal of Mathadhipathi, qualifications of mathadhipathi filling of temporary and permanent vacancies in the office of
mathadhipathi nomination of mathadhipathi and power of Commissioner
to frame scheme of administration of the Math. Petitioners case was that
the maths represented by them were not public endowments but were
private trusts; the expenses for the maintenance of the maths and worship
C in the temple were being carried on solely from the Padakanukas given by
the devotees; mathadhipathi being the spiritual head to il.iport religious
instructions and he not being a trustee, his appointment was purely a
religious act and not a sec.ular act, nomination of mathadhipathi was
based upon usage and customs of the respective maths; and therefore, the
D provisions of Ss.SO to SS of the Act attempting to regulate these matters
and vesting power in the Commissioner in respect of these matters
amounted to interference with religious tenets of Hindu religion and were
thus violative of Articles 2S and 26 of the Constitution of India.
On behalf of the State, it was contended that provisions of Ss.SO to
E SS of the Act regulate proper management and administration of the math,
the receipt of income, manner of use and ac<Juntability of Padakanukas
and other personal gifts made to the Mathadhipathi, the power to supervise and safeguard the interests of the maths being a secular function was
entrusted by law to the Commissioner; the provisions were enacted to
F avoid indelible effect on the administration of math properties and to
safeguard the interest of maths which otherwise would get affected adversely

## Text

_Characters 0–39,797 of 88,387. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39797 for what follows._

...
-
'f
SRI SRI SRI LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU AND ORS. ETC. ETC. A
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR .
JANUARY 24, 1996
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh Chan'table and Hindu Religious Institrltions and Endowments Act. I987/Agam Shastra Pandit Se1vice Rules, 1987.
B
Ss.2(16) 2(29), 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55-MathadhipathiC
Padakanukas or other personal gifts made to Mathadhipathi as head of
institution-Managenient and adn1inistration of n1ath prope1ties-R.emoval of
Mathadhipathi-Filling of temporary and pennanent vacancies in the office
of mathadhipathi-Nomination of mathadhipathi-Power of Commissioner
to frame scheme of administration of math-Held, right of mathadhipathi to
administer and manage property endowed to math and 1ights of similar D
character are legal rights-Mathadhipathi is neither hereditary t111stee, nor a
t111stee as envisaged by s.2( 16) and s.2(29) but he is a tnLStee of math in
relation to property of math or specific endowment attached to math-Matters
relating to adniinistration of niath properties are not n1atters of religion but
are secular activities though connected with religion enjoined on
mahant-Mathadhipathi incuning disqualifications enumerated in clauses
(d} to (i) of s.53 is liable to be removed-Suspension of a mathadhipathi is
a necessa1y and reasonable pmt of procedure for removal of mathadhipathiRole of Commissioner in nomination of mathadhipathi under s.54 is minimai-Power of Commissioner to frame scheme under s.55 is not abso/ut~
None of ss.50 to 55 offend Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution of India.
Constitution of India, 1950 :
E
F
Articles 25 and 26-Freedom to practice and propagate re/igionFreedom to manage religious affairs-Sections 50 to 55 of Andhra Pradesh G
Charitable and Hindu Religious lllstitutions and Endowments Act, •
1987-Held, are not violative of Articles 25 or 26-Administration and ·
management of math/propmies are secular activities-Fastening an obligation 011 Mathadhipathi to maintain accounts of Padakanukas and other
personal gifts made to mathadhipathi does not amount to inteiference with
religion.
929
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
A
The petitioners file<i the present writ petitions under Article 32 of
B
the Constitution challenging the Validity of Ss.SO to SO of the Andhra
Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments
Act, 1987. These provisions deal with maintaining regular accounts or
receipts of Padakanukas and other gifts made to the Mathadhipathi as
head of the math, removal of Mathadhipathi, qualifications of mathadhipathi filling of temporary and permanent vacancies in the office of
mathadhipathi nomination of mathadhipathi and power of Commissioner
to frame scheme of administration of the Math. Petitioners case was that
the maths represented by them were not public endowments but were
private trusts; the expenses for the maintenance of the maths and worship
C in the temple were being carried on solely from the Padakanukas given by
the devotees; mathadhipathi being the spiritual head to il.iport religious
instructions and he not being a trustee, his appointment was purely a
religious act and not a sec.ular act, nomination of mathadhipathi was
based upon usage and customs of the respective maths; and therefore, the
D provisions of Ss.SO to SS of the Act attempting to regulate these matters
and vesting power in the Commissioner in respect of these matters
amounted to interference with religious tenets of Hindu religion and were
thus violative of Articles 2S and 26 of the Constitution of India.
On behalf of the State, it was contended that provisions of Ss.SO to
E SS of the Act regulate proper management and administration of the math,
the receipt of income, manner of use and ac<Juntability of Padakanukas
and other personal gifts made to the Mathadhipathi, the power to supervise and safeguard the interests of the maths being a secular function was
entrusted by law to the Commissioner; the provisions were enacted to
F avoid indelible effect on the administration of math properties and to
safeguard the interest of maths which otherwise would get affected adversely due to protracted litigation for years; as regards the nomination of
Mathadhipathi, Agama Shastra Pandit Service Rules, 1987 provided
guidance In that behalf and the Commissioner would receive advice of the
Agam Shastra Pandit in the matters of religion, including usages, customs
G of Sampradayams observed by the religious institution; the Act and the
Rules provided sufficient safeguard in this respect and the Commissioner
would not exercise his powers arbitrarily or unreasonably, and bis
decisions would be subject to correction in an appropriate proceeding.
H
Dismissing the writ petition, this Court
\ ;r
-
.;-..
F
+- •
--{
I
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE
931
HELD : 1. None of the Sections 50 to 55 of the Andhra Pradesh A
Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987
offends Article 25 or 26 of the Constitution. Chapter V of the Act does not
per se attempt to regulate the propagation or preaching of the tenets by
Mahant or of the math or religious beliefs to which the math is founded
or it seeks to propagate. [964-H; 948-H)
2.1. Section 47 defines "mathadhipathi" to mean any person in whom
"the administration and management of a math or specific endowment
attached to a math are vested." The definition of mathadhipathi for the
purpose of the Act is expressly confined only in relation to the administraB
tion and management of a math or specified endowment attached to the C
math and vested in him as mathadhipathi. In the concept of mathadhipathi both the elements of power to hold property and duty to property
maintain it are blended and neither can be detached from the other. The
Mahant, therefore, as the spiritual head of the math is entrusted with the
administration and management of the math or the specific endowment. D
His right to administer and manage the property endowed to the math and
other rights of similar character are vested in the office of the Mahan!
and, therefore, they are legal rights attached to the management and the
administration of the property endowed to the math. [947-F-H)
2.2. Mathadhipathi being an aesthetic sanyasi, question of hereditary E
succession to the office of mathadhipathi does not arise. He is, neither
hereditary trustee nor a trustee in the sense envisaged by s.2(29) or s.2(16)
of the Act. But in jctaposition, his position as Mathadhipathi is of a trustee
of the property of the math or specific endowment attached to it of which
he is the head and holds the property as head of the institution as a trustee
with beneficial enjoyment over the math properties for the propagation of
the religious tenants and the philosophy applicable to the math or specific
endowment and Hindu Dharma. [949-F-H)
F
H.H. Sudhu11dra Tltirtha Swamiar v. Commissioner for Hindu
Religious & Charitable E11dowments, Mysore, [1963l Supp. 2 SCR 302 and G
Kaki11ada A11nadan Samajan Etc. v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious &
Charitable E11dowme11ts, Hyderabad & Ors., [1977) 2 SCR 878, relied on.
2.3. Fastening an obligation on mathadhipathi to maintain accounts
of the receipts of Padakanukas as personal gifts made to the mathad·
hipathi and to see that the funds are properly utilis_ed for the purposes of H
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
A the math in accordance with its objects and propagation of Hindu Dharma
does not amount to interference with religion. Questions relating to ad·
ministration of properties of math or specific endowment are not matters
of religion under Article 26(b); they are secular activitil!s though connected
with religion enjoined on Mahan!. (964-A-B; CJ
B
2.4. Section 50 of the Act requires the mathadhipathi to maintain
accounts in the manner prescribed therein which is a secular activity on
the part of a mathadhipathi. The intervention of the legislature in that
behalf is in the interest of the math itself. He is, therefore, enjoined to
maintain accounts in the regular course of the administration and main~
C tenance of the math. Operation of Section 50 is, therefore, a permissible
statutory intervention under Articles 25(2)(a) and 26(b) and (d) of the
Constitution. (964-D-E]
3.1. A mathadhipathi is liable to action under s.51 of the Act and the
D Commissioner would be entitled to initiate proceedings and remove a
mathadhipathi or a trustee of a specific endowment on his satisfying
anyone or all the conditions enumerated in clauses (d) to (i) or on
mathadhipathi's incurring disqualifications enumerated in clauses (d) (i)
or (a) to (c). Section 51 provides a complete machinery for removal of an
erring Mahant adjudging him to be not a fit person to remain mathad·
E hipathi. It further provides complete procedure and machinery to the
charged Mahant/trustee to disprove the charge and in case of removal
from office, he has right of instituting suit and preferring appeal to High
Court to have it corrected and legality of the order of removal, tested with .
adequate procedural safeguards. The validity of the grounds for removal
F
have already been upheld and validity of s.51 (1) is, therefore, no longer res
integra. (952-F; 955-B-C; 953-C]
G
Digvadarsa11 Rajendra Ramdassji Varn v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Anr., (1970] 1 SCR 103, relied on.
3.2. The suspension of a mathadhipathi, during inquiry is a neces·
sary and reasonable part of the procedure for removal of mathadhipathi.
It is essential, therefore, in these circumstances to make a provision for
suspending him till the enquiry c~ncludes and an order is made either
exonerating or directing his removal. The action under s.51 does not
H infringe Article 25(1) or 26(b) or 26(d). (953-D-F]
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU v. STATE
933
4.1. By operation of sub-section (2) of Section 53, the qualifications A
for a mahant are prescribed. If a Mahan! has already been removed, and
if self-same person is nominated as a mathadhipathi under Section 51(2),
it would be obvioas that the Commissioner cannot recognise such a
nomination and grant permission to him as Mathadhipathi. He would be
entitled to call nomination afresh. Obviously, recognition of the Commissioner required under sub-section (1) of Section 53 only regulates in that
behalf, and the when he is duly nominated as per the qualifications
prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 53. The provisions, therefore, are
intended to avoid needless protracted litigation over succession adversely
affecting due administration and maintenance of the math, to safeguard
B
the interest of the math and due fulfilment of the objects for which the C
math or specific endowment is created or established. [953-F-H; 954-A]
4.2. The Commissioner who is the head of the Endowment Department is a high ranking officer with wide administrative experience and is
expected to act fairly and reasonably to effectuate the purpose of Chapter D
V of the Act. It can be accepted that such a high ranking officer would call
to his aid necessary and incidental or ancillary powers only to given effect
to the purpose of the Act. He would act reasonably, objectively and fairly
If he commits any excess or acts unreasonably, the individual act is liable
to be questioned and dealt with appropriately according to law. But for
that ground Section 53 cannot be declared ultra vires. [954-B-D]
E
5.1. Role of the Commissioner in the nomination of Mathadhipathi
under s.54 is minimal; but nomination ipso facto cannot be recognised by
the Commissioner. By operation of sub-section (1) with a non obstante
clause, viz.,
11subject to provisions of Section 53", the basic qualifications
p
required for a person to be nominated as Mathadhipathi are enumerated in
sub-section (2) of Section 53. The Commissioner is guided by Pandit Rules
under which the duly competent person assists him in convening the meeting of Mahants having similar Sampardaya for nomination of a Mathadhipathi. Suitable procedure has been made in G.O.M.S. No 218 Revenue
dated March 17, 1988 known as Administration of Math 1987. Proviso to G
clause (v) ofsu~-rule (2) of Rule 3 make the position clear. [956-E; 957-E-Fl
5.2. The Commissioner should test the nomination but not interpose
with the nomination, nor interdict a duly qualified person as Mathadhipathi. The role of the Commissioner in that behalf, therefore, is only in H
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
A
the nature of an intervener in the nomination duly testing whether the
nominated person is a fit person to hold the office of Mahan! and to
manage and administer the math according to the tenets, Sampardayams,
usages, customs and philosophy of the math and the properties attached
to it. [958-D-E]
B
c
5.3. It cannot be said that the result of the provision of s.54 would
be to reduce the Mahan! to the position of a servant. No doubt, the
Commissioner is invested with powers to pass orders, but orders can be
passed only for the purpose specified in the section and not for interference with the right of the Mahant as are sanctioned by usage or for
lowering his position as the spiritual head of the institution. The saving
provisions contained in Section 91 of the Act makes the position CJUite
clear. An apprehension that the powers conferred by this section may be
abused in individual cases does not make the provision itself bad or invalid
in law. The ratio with equiforce is applicable to the context in which the
D validity of the provision is to be teSted. [957-B-D]
E
F
The Conunissioner, Hindu Religious Endownients, Madras v. Sli
Lakshmindra 17iiltha Swamiar of S1i Shintr Math, [1954] SCR 1005, relied
on.
6.1. The power of the Commissioner to frame a scheme under Section
55 of the Act is not absolute but is conditioned upon reasonable belief on
the basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner or the
Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the math or suo niotu;
but in later event he should have material on record for entertaining a
reasonable belief that the affairs of the math and its properties are being
mismanaged or that funds are misappropriated or that the mathadhipathi
grossly neglected in performing his duties. Prior enquiry in that behalf is
duly made in accordance with the Rules prescribed thereunder. [958-F-G]
G
6.2. If the Mahan! resorts to devices to convert the income of the
institution or of the funds or properties thereof into personal gifts made
to him, that would be improper conduct for which he would be liable to be
removed under s.51. The legislature by enacting that section did not
attempt to re-enact Section 55 to bring the obligation of the Mahan!, in a
H different garb. The same ratio applies to the present case. [963-D-E]
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE[KRAMASWAMY,J.]
935
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 867 of A
1987 Etc. Etc.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
K. Parasaran, R. Venugopal Reddy, Dr. V. Gaurishankar, P.P. Rao,
A. Raghuvir, H.S. Gururaja Rao, M.N. Krishnamani, Ms. Shyamala Pappu, B
and A.K. Ganguli, Ms. Mrindula Ray Bharadwaj, Dr. Suman! Bhardwarj,
Mohan Parasaran V. Balachandran, P.N. Ramalingam, A.D.N. Rao, T.V.
Ratanam, Subodh Markandeya, Ajay Singh, Mrs. Chitra Markandeya, Sunil
Kumar Jain for Jain Hansaria & Co., G. Prabhakar, B. Kanta Rao, S.
Rajappa, Mrs. H. Wahi, R. Ashok, B. Parthasarathi, K. Rajendra C
Chowdhary, Y. Prabhakarara Rao, M. Dorairaj V. Balaji, A.T.M. Sampath,
A. Subba Rao, A. Raghunath, K. Swami, Ms. Thilagavathya, R.D.B. Raju,
N. Ganpathy, K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha Nair, C. Balasubramaniam,
Adinarayana Raju, T.V.S.N. Chari (NP), Mr. P.K. Pillai, T.V. Ratnam,
G.Venkatesh Rao, Ms Sadhana Ramachandran, M.R. Krishnamurthi,
Pramod Sharma, R. C. Pathak and Sunil Kr. Jain for the appearing D
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. RAMASWAMY, J. The petitioners seek to question the vires of
Sections 2 (22), 2 (27) and Sections 47 to 55 in Chapter V of the Andhra E
Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act,
1987 (30 of 1987) (for short, "the Act"). But at the time of hearing Shri K.
Parasaran, their learned senior counsel, restricted his arguments to the
validity of Sections 50 to 55. The petitioner in the first writ petition is
Peetadhipati of the institution known as "Mumukshu Jana Maha Peetham" F
(for short, 'Peetham') in Pada Muktevi village of Mowa Manda! in Krishna
District of Andhra Pradesh. It was averred therein that the Peetham was
founded by one Seetharama Yetendrulu an advocate in the year 1938 and
he became a sanyasi. His main philosophy was equality and universality of
all religions faiths, good character, gratuitous conduct and devotion to
God, far more important than mere rituals. He formed Mumukshu Jana G
Samajam in 1950. He published several books under that banner. He was
running a Telugu magazine by name Mumukshuvu. He started school for
the children. He was managing a temple of Lakshmipati Swamy. The
devotees collected funds for all those projects by voluntary donation and
the amount given through bhiksha (seeitig alms). He donated his ancestral H
936
SUPREME COURT REP OR TS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
A house and purchased 4 acres of land with the aid of Padakanukas (personal
gifts). He died in 1972 and nominated one of his disciples as successor and
thereafter with the aid of Padakanukas from thousands of disciples temples
were constructed by the first petitioner and were being managed with the
Padakanukas given by the devotees. It is not a public endowment but a
B private trust. The expenses for the maintenance of the math and worship
in the temple are being carried on solely from the Padakanukas given by
the devotees to reverence which the disciples gave to the Mathadhipathi.
It is, therefore, clear that the above provisions are ultra vires, in their
application to the petitioner math. Similar contentions have been raised in
all other writ petitions. By their very admission, the petitioner's institution
C is a math and being managed from personal gifts etc. made by devotees
and collected by disciples.
Shri Parasaran, the learned senior counsel, contended that Section
48 of the Act excludes application of Sections 18 to 22, 25 and 28 of
D Chapter III to maths. the other provisions in Chapter III by implication
would apply to the maths for the reason that they are not excluded.
Sections 34 and 35, therefore, by implication stand attracted to the mathadhipathi irrespective of the fact whether mathadhipathi falls under the
definition of
11hereditary trustee
11 or not.
E
F
Mathadhipathi is the spiritual head to impart religious instructions.
Therefore, he cannot be treated as a hereditary trustee nor he be held to
hold any office or service or a post by whatever name it is called. Appointment of a Mathadhipathi is not a secular act. Mathadhipathi, indisputably
not being a trustee, his appointment is purely a religious act. The nomination of the mathadhipathi is based upon usage and custom of the math. It
is a concept appertaining to Hindu religious endowment. It is sui generis.
One cannot put it in a strait jacket by any jurisprudential concept. Section
54 imposes recognition of the nomination of a mathadhipathi by· the
Commissioner, an officer of the Government, who does· not have
knowledge of usages or practices prevalent in the relevant math. Imposition
G of such conditions is an interference with freedom of religion and power
to manage religious affairs. Removal of Mahan! under Section 51, filling
up of vacancy under Section 53, recognition of nomination of Mahant
under Section 54 and powers to frame a scheme for the management of a
math under Section 55 are ultra vires of Articles 25(1) and 26(b) of the
H Constitution. The learned counsel elaborated the contentions arguing that
' .
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE[K.RAMASWAMY,J.)
937
the procedure for nomination of the mathadhipathi, convening of a meeting A
with mathadhipathi of other maths of similar Sampardayams as provided
under Section 54 (2) of the Act, are repugnant to the usage and Sampardayams of the same math. Each math is governed by its own usage and
Sampardayams. No two maths can be held to be governed by the same set
of usages and Sampradayams unless one is specific endowment or subordinate of the main math. Though several maths may propagate the same
religious philosophy, each math will have its own distinct and different
usage or Sampradayams. Even a math propagating the tenets of religious
philosophy of Adishankracharya are having different Sampardayams.
Similarly, each math following and propagating the dwaita philosophy of
Madhwacharya will have its own Sampardayam. Maths propagating VashisB
c
tha dwaita philosophy of Shriramanujacharya have their own
Sampradayams. Therefore, the Act attempting to regulate nomination of a
Mathadhipathi at the recommendation of other mathadhipathis and its
acceptance by the Commissioner, or filling up similarly of temporary
vacancies in the office of Mathadhipathi, are but naked interference with D
religious tenets of Hindu religion.
The Act does not provide any guidelines for things to be done in
Chapter V of the Act. The rules made by subordinate legislation cannot
independently provide guidelines when the Act is silent as to the essential
guidelines. In such a situation, the Act itself is unconstitutional for excesE
s.ive delegation and provisions of Section 53 (2) (a) to (d) are not matters
on which any secular authority is competent to decide as to whether the
Commissioner will recognise a person nominated as Mahant who could
have other qualifications like Acharya, Anusthana, Niyama, Bhakti etc. The
best person to adjudge the requisite qualifications is the religious head
F
himself or the disciples of such particular math or denomination and not
by any other secular authority not even religious head of another math.
Religion being a matter of particular faith, the persons having faith of
particular denomination is to decide as to who will be their mathadhipathi
and to whom they will disciples. It is not for the secular judgment or any G
other authority or even by making rules or even making provisions for
testing his knowledge of Hindu religion, scriptures, Sampardayams etc.
with the help of persons without such knowledge. In fact, in a math a
celibate appointed as mathadhipathi would lead the life of a celibate. He
may be nominated at any age, say at even the age of 7 years. He would
learn scriptures in a traditional way in the math itself. A test to be H
938
SUPREME COURT REP OR TS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
A conducted by Pandits to permit him to be appointed by a secular authority
as the mathadhipathi is incongruous or repugnant to the Sampardayam. A
mathadhipathi can be removed only on grounds which are secular in nature
like some of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 51 (l)(i). A secular
authority cannot exercise any power at any stage of appointment to a
B
religious office. A mathadhipathi cannot be removed by secular authority
except for secular reasons which must be just, fair and reasonable relatable
to one or other of the grounds mentioned in Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution. The question of approval or disapproval of a nomination of
a mathadhipathi or removal of him on the ground of not having knowledge
of the scriptures etc., would amount to interference with the religion. The
C direction to maintain regular accounts of receipts of Padakanukas would
be no interference with religious duties; and so, it is unconstitutional,
though such a provision for Padakanukas offered to him as head of the
math may be valid; but to the extent of Padakanukas given as gifts personal
to the mathadhipathi, the sections are violative of Article 25(1).
D
He further contends that by operation of Section 48, the applicability
of Section 29, which relates to appointment and continuance of executive
officers, also stands applied to the maths by which the Act interferes with
Mahant's right to manage the math. The power to frame the scheme nnder
Section 55 is given to the Commissioner and he appoints the executive
E
officer to manage the math, which is also an interference with the management of the math, which act is inherent in the office of the mathadhipathi
as heal: of the institution. The provision for transfer of the office holders
and servants of the math provided in Section 39 is unconstitutional. Most
of the employees of the maths may be disciples themselves; their appointF
ment, removal, dismissal etc. being matters of administration by the
mathadhipathi for due management of the math, interference by Commissioner in that behalf is also ultra vires Article 25.
Shri P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel for the State, resisted these
contentions. He conceded that though the definition of a trustee in Section
G 2(29) includes mathadhipathi insofar as his right to administer and manage
the properties of the math are concerned the Act does not impinge upon
his right as a spiritual head of math. The abolition of hereditary rights by
Section 16 does not include the right of mathadhipathi. Mathadhipathi in
most cases is nominated by his predecessor. Mathadhipathi is a sanyasi who
H has renounced worldly affairs and has severed his ties with natural family.
'
~-·
-
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE[KRAMASWAMYJ.]
939
Therefore, is no scope for hereditary succession to the office of a mathadA
hipathi. The hereditary trustee defined under Section 2(16) and abolished
by Section 16 docs not, therefore, include mathadhipathi. The concept of
hereditary trustee defined in the predecessor Act 17 of 1966 is the same
as in the Act. Section 16, therefore, has no application to a mathadhipathi.
B
Qualifications and disqualifications of a mathadhipathi have been
separately set out in Sections 53(2) and 51(1) respectively in Chapter V,
which deals with maths. The qualifications or disqualifications for a trustee
mentioned in Sections 18 and 19 do not apply to a Mahant Equally, Section
20 deals with constitution of board of trustees and its Chairmanship which
do not apply to a mathadhipathi since mathadhipathi is a single person. C
Section 22 has no application, since Section 51 deals with filling up of
t_emporary vacancies of mathadhipathi and Section 53 deals with filling up
of permanent vacancy in the office of mathadhipathi. Equally, Section 25
is not applicable to a math since Section 49 occupies the field for fixation
of dittam for the math. Section 28 does not apply to mathadhipathi, which D
has been separately dealt with in Chapter V. All the provisions contained
in Chapter V of the Act regulate proper management and administration
of the math and the receipt of income, manner of use and accountability
of the Padkanukas to Mahant and the math. Section 48, therefore, makes
explicit what is implicit in other provisions of the Act. Recognition of
nomination of Mathadhipathi (spiritual head) by the Commissioner under E
Section 53 was made a condition precedent for succession to the office of
the mathadhipathi only to ensure that a person possessed of the qualifications prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 53, and one who does not
suffer from any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-section (1) of
Section 51, alone would succeed to the office of mathadhipathi. The object
F
is to prevent future litigation to the succession to the office. It was enacted
to avoid indelible effect on the administration of the math properties and
to safeguard the interests of the math which otherwise adversely gets
affected due to protected litigation for years. Power has been conferred on
the Commissioner who is the head of the Endowment Department and a
high-ranking officer with vast administration experience. The law presumes G
that he would reasonably exercise all the powers to grant permission. It
would imply that the Commissioner would call in aid all necessary or
consequential powers usually implied and necessary to the proper exercise
of the power and performance of the duties to effectuate the purpose and
the object of the regulation. Therefore, it would be necessary that the H
•
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
A Commissioner should have implied powers. In case where the Commissioner feels that the nomination of the successor requires examination, the
obligation to consult a Mahant of a similar math is cast on him; that too
with a mathadhipathi of other maths having the same Sampardayams. An
agama shastra pandit working in the office of the Commissioner, EndowB
c
ment Department, advises the Commissioner in the matters of religion
including usages, customs or Sampardayams observed by a religious institution. Rules, viz., Agama Shastra Pandit Service Rules, 1987 (for short,
"Pandit Rules") made in that behalf provide guidance. If no objection to
the nomination of a mathadhipathi is raised by any person, or where the
Commissioner does not have any other adverse- material, or where the
nominee does not suffer from any disqualification, he does not withhold
permission for succession as a mathadhipathi. Only when Dbjections are
raised by any interested person or even by a disciple or the Commissioner
has adverse material, he would seek clarification or information from the
nominee or the mathadhipathi or both and then take a decision. Rule 5 of
D the Pandit Rules provides necessary guidelines in that behalf. The Commissioner is not expected to exercise his powers under Section 53 (1)
arbitrarily or unreasonably. If he so does in an individual case, the correctness thereof may be quashed in an appropriate proceeding, according to
the prescribed procedure.
E
F
The power to supervise and safeguard the interests of the maths is a
secular function which has by law been entrusted to the Commissioner. In
a given case, if he exercises the power in a manner objectionable to the
incumbent the same would be amenable to correction in an appropriate
forum. The law conferring such a power cannot be faulted. The provisions
in Sections 52, 53, 54 and the Rules made thereunder would provide
sufficient guidelines which postulate an enquiry. The administration of
mathadhipathi Rules, 1987 would supplement the provisions in Sections 53
and 54. Justice Challa Kondaiah Commission pointed out misuse and abuse
of the office by some mathadhipathi who used math properties as
Padakunukas (personal gifts) for their personal gain and siphoned the
G income for personal luxuries or misused for wine or women etc. The Act
only regulates and monitors math properties and income for its utilisation
for religions purposes. The Rules give guidance and full freedom to the
mathadhipathi for use of offerings personally given as Padakanukas to him
for religious purpose and for his maintenance, consistent with his status
H according to Samparadayams or usage or custom of the said math. The
,
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY,J.]
941
Commissioner is invested with the power only for secular purpose specified A
in the section. It does not amount to interference with the rights of the
mathadhipathi as spiritual head sanctioned by usage or custom nor does it
t~nd to lower his position as spiritual head of the institution. The saving
provisions contained in Section 91 of the Act make the matter more clear.
The apprehension that the powers conferred on the Commissioner may be B
misused or abused is unfounded. Even if it has so happened, the provisions
cannot be struck down or declared invalid on that apprehended premises.
There is no time limit fixed for nomination of a successor. The time
limit mentioned in Section 54 (1) is only for intimation of the nomination
by the mathadhipathi to the Commissioner. 90 days' time given thereunder C
is a fairly long period for such a intimation and it is a reasonable period.
It would enable the Commissioner to consider all relevant aspects and to
take a decision of his granting permission for recognition of the mathadhipathi.
~
D
-
Section 54(2) governs the case of nomination by previous mathadhipathi and when a mathadhipathi is not available to nominate his successor, a meeting of the mathadhipathis of other maths and the disciples of
the math to decide the question of successor would arise. Rule 8 of
Mathadhipathi Rules is relatable to Section 54(2). Rule 3(2)(iii) of the E
Rules, though speaks of minor giving consent, should be understood
reasonably. A consent by a minor would mean a consent of a guardian on
behalf of the minor known under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,
1956 or property guardian appointed by a competent court. Section 52
confers, therefore, only limited power to meet one of the contingencies
enumerated therein, viz., occurrence of a temporary vacancy or existence F
of a dispute regarding successor or successor being a minor without there
being a fit or suitable person to act on his behalf. In such contingencies
the claim of disciples, if any, would be duly taken into consideration. The
provisions in Section 52, therefore, are not invalid. Section 47 of 1966 Act
is similar to Section 52 of the Act which has already been upheld by this G
Court. The executive officer is appointed under Section 29 only when a
scheme has been framed under Section 55; that too, when the Commissioner is satisfied from the reports submitted to him that the properties of
the math are mismanaged or misappropriated or that the Mahan! grossly
neglected his power as the mathadhipathi. The scheme framed would be H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1996] 1 S.C.R.
A subject to appeal. It would be framed only after making an enquiry. It is a
secular act.
B
Section 45 of the predecessor Act of 1966 did not require the
mathadhipathi to maintain regular accounts of receipts of personal gifts or
other gifts made to the mathadhipathi as head of the math. He was allowed
to spend at his discretion for any purpose which is not immoral or illegal.
As the Commission, after enquiry, found that corrupt practices were
devised to siphon off the funds of the math as Padakanukas, i.e., personal
gifts or the same are utilised for leading luxurious, immoral or extravagant
way of life, the Commissioner has been empowered to direct the mathadC hipathi to render accounts of the gifts received by mathadhipathis. The
provision, therefore, was made only for accountability of the receipt of such
gifts by the mathadhipathis. In view of the admission that the gifts made to
the mathadhipathi for the math are accountable, the Mahant is liable to
account for the same. The personal gifts also would be required to be
D accounted only to the extent of their receipt and not now they are spent
by him; he has full freedom to spend for religious purposes etc. After
deletion of Articles 19(1)(!) and 31 from Part III of the Constitution by
44th Constitution (Amendment) Act, the law down by this Court that the
mathadhipathi had the fundamental right to property no longer is available
to him. Therefore, he is required to maintain regular accounts of the
E receipt of Padakanukas or other personal gifts and to spend the same at
his discretion for purposes connected with the objects of the math and
propagation of the Hindu dharma. The Act only regulates secular activities
of the mathadhipathi in spending the Padakanukas and that too in his own
interest. Therefore, the regulations are permissible under Article 25 of the
F
G
Constitution. It does not amount to interference with the religious functions
of the mathadhipathi as head of the math. Since no rules regarding the
transfer of the employees of the maths have been made, the question of
vires need not be gone into. If and when rules are made the question
whether they are consistent with the scheme needs to be gone into at that
time. Therefore, the is argument in that behalf is only of academic interest.
Sections 50 to 55 of the Act read as under :
"50. Padakanukas and other gifts:- (1) The Mathadhipathi shall
maintain regular accounts of receipts of padakanukas or other
H
personal gifts of property made to him as the head of the Math
'G,
.....
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE[K.RAMASWAMY,J.]
943
and he shall be entitled to spend, at his discretion for any purpose A
which is connected with the objects of the math and propagation
of Hindu Dharma.
(2) Any padakanuka or other personal gift which remains undisposed of during the life time of the mathadhipathi shall devolve
on the math as its assets.
(3) In the case of gifts of property or money made to the mathadhipathi not as personal gifts but as gifts intended for the benefit
of the math, the Mathadhipathi, shall keep accounts of all receipts
B
and disbursements of such gifts and shall cause such accounts to C
be produced before the Commissioner or any person authorised
by him in this behalf whenever so required.
Explanation : Any gift of property or money made to that mathadhipathi shall, unless it is specified by the donor as padakanuka or
personal gift, be presumed to be a gift intended for the benefit of D
the math.
"51. Removal of Mathadhipathi - (1) The Commissioner may suo
n1otu or on an application of two or more persons having interest
initiate proceedings for removing a mathadhipathi or a trustee of E
a specific endowment attached to a math, if he -
(a) is of unsound mind;
(b) is suffering from any physical or mental defect or infirmity
which renders him unfit to be a mathadhipathi or such trustee;
F
( c) has ceased to profess the Hindu religion or the tenets of the
math;
( d) has been sentenced for any offence involving more turpitude,
such sentence not having been reversed;
G
( e) is guilty of breach of trust or mis-appropriation 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 the Act;
H
944
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
(g) violates any of the restrictions imposed or practices enjoined
by the custom, usage or the tenets of the math, in relation to his
personal conduct, such as celibacy, renunciation and the like;
(h) leads an immoral life; or
(i) fails or ignores to implement the principles set out in clause
(17) of Section 2.
(2) The commissioner shall frame a charge on any of the grounds
specified in sub-section (1) against the mathadhipathi or trustee
concerned and given 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 other 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 explanation 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
mathadhipathi or trustee shall not take effect unless it is confirmed
by the Government.
(3) Pending the passing of an order under sub-section (2); the
Commissioner may suspend the mathadhipathi or the trustee;
(4) (a) Any mathadhipathi or trustee ~ggrieved by an order passed
by the Commissioner under Sub-section (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 from the
date of a decree or order of the Court in such suit.
52. Filling of temporary vacancies in the office of the mathadhipathi:
(1) Where a temporary vacancy occurs in the office of the mathadhipathi and there is a dispute in regard to the right of succession
to such Office, or where the mathadhipathi is a minor and has no
'
.... -
•
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU v. STATE [K.