# Krishanl'I lshwarlnl Dtsai v. Bai Vijkor

- **Citation:** [1964] 1 S.C.R. 561
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajf.Ndragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. Das Gupta, j. C. SHAH
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/krishanl-i-lshwarlnl-dtsai-v-bai-vijkor-2801
- **Pages:** 79

## Headnote

Nnthdwara Ttmple-I'ril'Gle or public t•mple-Te<l&-
Yalidity of enactment pro,.iding for proper arlministration of
temple-Constitutfo'Jl,ality-~\'athdu1ara Tf'm7J/e Act, 1959 (Raja.~
than .13 of 19-W) ss. 2 (viii), .1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 16, 21, 22, 27,
28, .JO, J:i, Jr;, 37-Consfitution of India, Art•. U, 19 (1) (/),
"5 ''G
·1 I ( '')
.. ' - ) ' .
,_ .
The history of the Nathdwara Temple in the District of
Udaipur showed that Vallabha, who was the founder of the
dcnominati0n known as Pushtimargiya Vaishnava Sampradaya,
installed the idol of Srimthji in a temple and that later on his
descendants built the Nathdwara Temple in I 761. The religious rcputati6n of the temple grew i11 importance and several
grants were made and thousands of devotees visiting the temple
made ofl'erings to the temple. The succession to the Gaddi of
the 'filkayat received recognition from the Rulc::rs ofMewar,
but on seve1al occasions the Rulc::rs interfered whenever it was
found that the affairs of the temple were not managed pre perly.
In 1934 a Firman was issued by the Ucfaipur Darbar, by which,
inter alia, it was declared that according to the law of Udai ..
pur all the property dedicated or presented to or otherwise
coming to the Deity Shrinathji was property of the shrine, that
the Tilkayat Maharaj for the time being was merely a custodian, Manager and Trustee of the said property and that the
Udaipur Darbar had absolute right to supervise
that thr.
1963
Krishanl'I lshwarlnl
Dtsai
v.
Bai Vijkor
Gujendrai.Okar J.
196.1
Ja,.uary, 2J.
1963
Ti/l;"J4l
Slrn Gocin•lalji
Mohiir"j
v.
't•te ef Rcja.sthan
562 SUPREME COt]RT REPORTS (1964] VOL.
property dedicated to the shrine was usecl for the legitimate
purposes of the shrine. The m1n1gement of the affairs by the
appellant Tilkayat was not successful and it became necessary
that a scheme should be framed for the management of the
Temple.
On February 6, J 9j9, the Governor of Rajas than
promulgated an Ordinance, which was in due course replaced
by the Nathdwara Temple /\cl, J 9j9, The appellant challenged the validitv of the Act on the grounds, inter alia, that the
idol of Shrinathji in the Nathd-wara Temple and all the property pertainin'?' to it were his private properties and, as such,
the State Le~islature was not competent to pass the. Act, that
even if the ~athdwara Temple was held to be a public temple,
he as Mahant or Shebait had a beneficial interest in the office of
the high priest as well as the properties of the temple and thaf
on that footing, his rights •:nder Aris. 14, 19 (I) (f) and 31 (2}
of the Constitution of India had heen contravened by the Act.
It was also urged that the provisions of the Act infringed the
fundamental ·rights guar.lnteed to the Denomination under
Aris. 55 (I) and 26
(b) and (c) of the Constitution. The
question was also raised as to whether the tenel5 of the Vall-
.abha denomination and its religious practices required that the
worship by the devotees should be performed at the private
temple and so the existence of public temples was inconsistent
with the said tenets and practices.
Hdd, (I) that neither that tenet• nor the religious practices uf the V41labha school necessarily postulate that the
followers of the school must worship in a private temple.
(2) that in view of the documentary evidence in the case
it could not be held that the temple was built by the Ti!kayat of
the dJ.y as hh private temple or that it still coatinues to havc·thc
character of a private temple; that though from the outside
it had the appearance of a liaveli, the majestic
st~ucture inside
was cohsistcnt "•ith the dignity of the idol and with the character of the temple as a public temple.
(3) that an ausolule mnnarch was the fountain-head of
all Jegislativo, executive and judicial p:>wcrs, that it was of the
very essence of sovereignty which vested in him that he could
supervise and control the administration o~ public charity, and
that this principle applied as much to Hindu m:1narchs as to
an

## Text

_Characters 0–39,964 of 164,974. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39964 for what follows._

l S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
561
to-an order for possession of the premises in question. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed
with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
TILKAYAT SHRI GOVINDLALJI MAHARAJ
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA, c. ]., P. B. GAJF.NDRAGADKAR,
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and
j. C. SHAH, jj.)
Nnthdwara Ttmple-I'ril'Gle or public t•mple-Te<l&-
Yalidity of enactment pro,.iding for proper arlministration of
temple-Constitutfo'Jl,ality-~\'athdu1ara Tf'm7J/e Act, 1959 (Raja.~
than .13 of 19-W) ss. 2 (viii), .1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 16, 21, 22, 27,
28, .JO, J:i, Jr;, 37-Consfitution of India, Art•. U, 19 (1) (/),
"5 ''G
·1 I ( '')
.. ' - ) ' .
,_ .
The history of the Nathdwara Temple in the District of
Udaipur showed that Vallabha, who was the founder of the
dcnominati0n known as Pushtimargiya Vaishnava Sampradaya,
installed the idol of Srimthji in a temple and that later on his
descendants built the Nathdwara Temple in I 761. The religious rcputati6n of the temple grew i11 importance and several
grants were made and thousands of devotees visiting the temple
made ofl'erings to the temple. The succession to the Gaddi of
the 'filkayat received recognition from the Rulc::rs ofMewar,
but on seve1al occasions the Rulc::rs interfered whenever it was
found that the affairs of the temple were not managed pre perly.
In 1934 a Firman was issued by the Ucfaipur Darbar, by which,
inter alia, it was declared that according to the law of Udai ..
pur all the property dedicated or presented to or otherwise
coming to the Deity Shrinathji was property of the shrine, that
the Tilkayat Maharaj for the time being was merely a custodian, Manager and Trustee of the said property and that the
Udaipur Darbar had absolute right to supervise
that thr.
1963
Krishanl'I lshwarlnl
Dtsai
v.
Bai Vijkor
Gujendrai.Okar J.
196.1
Ja,.uary, 2J.
1963
Ti/l;"J4l
Slrn Gocin•lalji
Mohiir"j
v.
't•te ef Rcja.sthan
562 SUPREME COt]RT REPORTS (1964] VOL.
property dedicated to the shrine was usecl for the legitimate
purposes of the shrine. The m1n1gement of the affairs by the
appellant Tilkayat was not successful and it became necessary
that a scheme should be framed for the management of the
Temple.
On February 6, J 9j9, the Governor of Rajas than
promulgated an Ordinance, which was in due course replaced
by the Nathdwara Temple /\cl, J 9j9, The appellant challenged the validitv of the Act on the grounds, inter alia, that the
idol of Shrinathji in the Nathd-wara Temple and all the property pertainin'?' to it were his private properties and, as such,
the State Le~islature was not competent to pass the. Act, that
even if the ~athdwara Temple was held to be a public temple,
he as Mahant or Shebait had a beneficial interest in the office of
the high priest as well as the properties of the temple and thaf
on that footing, his rights •:nder Aris. 14, 19 (I) (f) and 31 (2}
of the Constitution of India had heen contravened by the Act.
It was also urged that the provisions of the Act infringed the
fundamental ·rights guar.lnteed to the Denomination under
Aris. 55 (I) and 26
(b) and (c) of the Constitution. The
question was also raised as to whether the tenel5 of the Vall-
.abha denomination and its religious practices required that the
worship by the devotees should be performed at the private
temple and so the existence of public temples was inconsistent
with the said tenets and practices.
Hdd, (I) that neither that tenet• nor the religious practices uf the V41labha school necessarily postulate that the
followers of the school must worship in a private temple.
(2) that in view of the documentary evidence in the case
it could not be held that the temple was built by the Ti!kayat of
the dJ.y as hh private temple or that it still coatinues to havc·thc
character of a private temple; that though from the outside
it had the appearance of a liaveli, the majestic
st~ucture inside
was cohsistcnt "•ith the dignity of the idol and with the character of the temple as a public temple.
(3) that an ausolule mnnarch was the fountain-head of
all Jegislativo, executive and judicial p:>wcrs, that it was of the
very essence of sovereignty which vested in him that he could
supervise and control the administration o~ public charity, and
that this principle applied as much to Hindu m:1narchs as to
any other absolute mo11arch.
Any order i5sued by such a Ruler
would have the force of law and govern the rights of the parties
affected thereby: and that, accordingly, the Firman issued by the
Maharana of Cdaipur in 1934 was a law by which the affairs
of the :\athdwara Temple were governed after its issue.
I S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
563
Madhaorao Phalke v. The State of Madhya Bharat, [1961]
I S. C.R. 9:17, relied on.
·
(4) that under the law of Udaipur the Nathdwara Temple
was a public temple and that the Tilkayat was no more than
the Custodian, :0.fanager and Trustee of the property belonging
to the temple.
-
(5) that having regard to the terms of the Firman of 1934
the right claimed by the Tilkayat could not amount to a right
l:o property under Art. 19 (I) (f) or constitute property under
.\rt. 31 (2) of the Constitution; that even if it were held that
'his right constituted a right to hold property, the restrictions
.imposed by the Act must be considered as reasoaable and in the
interests of the public under Art. 19 (5).
Vidya Varuthi Thirtha v. Balu.sami Ayyar, (1921) L. R. 48
I. A. 302 and the Commissioner, Hindu Rdigious Endowments,
Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Tirt/ia Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt,
[19541 S. C.R. 1005, considered.
(6) that the Art was not invalid on the ground of discrimination under Art. 14.
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar,
[1959] S. C. R. 279, relied on.
(7) that the right to mana~e the properties of a temple was
a purely secular matter and could not be regarded as a religious
practice under Art. 25. (I.) or as amounting to affairs in 1 matters
of religion under Art. 26 (b).
Consequently, the Act in so far
as it· provided for the inanagement of the properties of the
N'athdwara Temple under the provisions of the Act, did not
contravene Arts. 25 ( l) and 26 (b).
The Durgah Committee,
Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali,
[1962] IS. C.R. 333, referred to.
(8) that the expression "Law'' in Art. 26 (d) meant a law
passed by a competent legislature and under that Article the
legislature was competent to make a law in regard to the ad~
ministration of the property belonging to the denominatilln and
that the provisions of the Act providing for the constitution of
a Board to administer the property were valid.
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay, p 954)
$·C.R. !Qj5, referrecl to,
·
J96J
Tilkayat
Sh1i Govindl1tji
Maharaj
v.
State of Rajasthan
1963
Ti/4·11ya:
Shri (;cJl"inJlilji
Malaroj
••
Stat1 of R1jo1th'n
564
SUPRE:\1E COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
(9) that the schernc envisaged by ss. 3, 4, 16, 22 and 34 of
the Act 1ncrcly allo\\·ed the a<ln1inistration of the propcrtie! ef
the ternple \Vhich was a purely secular n1attr.r to be undertaken
by the Board and that the sections were valid.
(10) that under s. 5 (2) (g) it was necessary that the
members' of the Board other than the Collector of Udaipur
District should not only profr.ss Hindu religion but must also
belong to the
P11shti Margiya \'allahhi Sampradaya; and
that the proviso to s. 5 (2) (g) which enabled a Collector
to be a statutory member of the Board even though he may not
be a Hindu and may not belong to the denomination, did not
contravene Arts. 25 (I) and 26 (b).
(II) that the expression "affairs of the temple" ins. 16
referred only the purely secular affairs in regard to the adminis·
tration of the temple and thar the section w~'s valid.
(12) that s. 30 (2) (a) in so far as it conferred on the
State Government power to m.i.ke rules in re:spect of the q11ali·
fications for h'>lding the oOice of the (f,'lswami, W.&! invalid.
(13) that "· 5, 7, JO, 11, 21, 27, 28, 3.i, .'l6 and 37
were valid.
C1v1r, ArrEUTt: Ji.:1t1~01crros: Civil Appeals
Nos. 652, 61):1 and 71)7 of l!l62.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated
January 31, I 962, of the Rajasthan High Court in
D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. !JO of l 95!l.
AND
VICE VERSA
(b) Civil Appeals
l\os. 6i>4,
fi;i5 and 758
of l!l62.
Appeals from the judE(ment and order dated
January :lJ, l!l62, of the Rajasthan High Court in
·o. B. Civil Writ Petition No. :no of l!l.~!l.
Al\D
VICE VERSA
(c} Civil Appeal No. ll56 of J!Hi2.
1 S.Q.R.
SUPR.11.ME COURT REPORTS
565
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
January 31, 1962, of the Rajasthan High Court in
D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4~ I of 1960.
(d) Writ Petition No. 74 of 1962.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India,
G. S. Pathak, B. B. Desai, V. A. Seyid Muhammad
and B. C. Misra, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 652
of 1962) and respondent No. 1 (in C. As. Nos. 653
and 757 of 1962).
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India,
G. C. Kasliwal Advocate-General for the State of
Rajasthan, M. M. Tewari, S. K. Kapur, B. R. L.
Iyengar., Kan Singh, V, N. Sethi, B. R. C. K. Achar
and P. D. Menon, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in
C. A. Nos. 652 and 656/62) respondent No. 1 (in
.
-
C. A. No. 654/62), respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (m
C. A. No. 75'1/62),
respondent No. 11 (in C. A.
No. 758/62) and appellants (in C. A. Nos. 653, and
655/62).
.
Sarjoo Prasad, S. B. L. Saxena and K. K.
Jain, for respondents Nos. 3 to 5 (in C. A. No. 652/62)
respondents Nos. 2-4 (in C. A. No. 653/62), respondents Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 (in C. A. No. 654/62),
the Board and its members (in C. A. No. 655/62),
respondents Nos. 3-12 (in C. A. No. 656/62) and the
appellants (in C. A. Nos. 757 and 758 of 1962.)
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Balkrishna Acharya
and M. V. Goswami, for the appellants (in C. A. No.
654/62), respondents Nos. 1-10 (in C. A No. 655/62)
and respondents Nos. 1-10 (in C. A. No. 758/62).
P. K. Chakravarty, for the appellant (in C. A.
No. 656/fi2).
1963
Tilkt?y•t
Shri GfJointll•!fi ·
M 11haraj
v.
Ststa of RaJasth'J."I
1965
Tillcoyal
. Silti GM1ittilolji
Mah-.r6j
v.
S1ot1 of &j11StMn
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] vot.
G. S. Pathak, B. Datta and B. P. Mahe&hwari,
for the petitioner (in W. P. No. 74/62).
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, G S.
KaBliwal, Advocate-General for the State of Raja&·
than, M. M. Tewari, S. K. Kapur, B. R. L. Iyengar,
Kan Singh, Y. N. Sethi and P. D.
Menon,
for
respondents Nos. l and 2 (in W. P. No. 74/62).
S(trjoo l'ra&ad, S. 8. L. S e:ceoo
and K. K.
Jain, for respondents Nos. 3-12 (in \V. P. No.74/62).
l!J63. January 2 I. The J u<lgment of the Court
was delivered by
Go1,.•••1dJc.,, J.
G.&JENDRAGADKAI!, J .-This group of seven
cross-appeals arises from three writ petitions field in
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, in which
the validity of the Nathdwara Temple Act, J 95!)
(No. XIII of l\l."1'1) (hereinafter called the Act) has
been challenged.
The principal writ petition was
Writ Petition No. DO of 1950; it was filed by the
p~esent Tilkayat Govindlalji (hereinafter. ~ailed the
T1lkayat) on February 28, 1959. That Petition challenged the validity of the ::\athdwara Ordinance, HJ59'
(No. II of 1959) which had been issued on Ftbruary
6, 1959. Subsequently this Ordinance was repealed
by the Act which, after receiving the assent of the
President, came into force on
March 28, 1959.
Thereafter, the Tilkayat was allowed
to amend
his petition and after its amendment, the petition
challenged the vires of the Act the provisions of which
are identical with the provisions of its predecessor
Ordinance. Along with this petition Writ Petition
No. 310 of 1959 was filed on August l 7, 1959,
by,
ten
petitioners
who
purported
to
act
on behalf of the followers
of the Pushtimargiya
Vaishnava Sampradaya. This petition attacked the
validity of the Act on behalf of the Denomination of
the followers of Vallabha. On November 3, 1960,
1 S.C.R. . SUPREME COURT REPORTS
567
the third Writ Petition (No. 421 of 1960) was filed on
behalf of Goswami Shri Ghanshyamlalji who as a
direct descendant of Vallabha, set up an interest in
himself in regard to the Nathdwara Temple, and as
a person having interest .in the said Temple, he
challenged the validity of the Act.
These three petitions were heard together by the High Court and
have been dealt with by a common judgment. In
substance, the High Court has upheld the validity of
the Act, but it has struck down as ultra vires a part
of the definition of 'temple' ins. 2 (viii), a part ofs. 16
which refers to the affairs of the temple; s. 28, sub-ss.
(2) and (3); s. 30 (2)(a); ss. 36 and 37. The petitioners
as well as ·the State of Rajasthan felt aggrieved
by this decision and that has given rise to the present
cross-appeals.
The Tilkayat
has filed
Appeal
No. 652 of 1962, whereas the State has filed appeals
Nos. 653 and 757 of 1960.
These appeals arise from
Writ Petition No. 90 of 1959. The Deno'!I\ination
has filed Appeal No 654 of 1962, .wh€reas the State
has filed Appeals Nos. 655 and 758 of l !Jo2.
These
appeals arise from Writ Petition No. 310 of 1059.
Ghanshyamlalji whose Writ Petition '.'lo. 421of1U60
has been dismissed by the High Court on the ground
that it raises disputed questions of fact which cannot
be tried .u.nder Art. 226 of the Constitution, has preferred Appeal No. 656 of 1962. Since Ghanshyamlalji's petition has been dismissed in limine on the
ground just indicated, it was unnecessary for the
State to prefer any crms-appeal. Besides these seven
appeals, in the present group has been included Writ
Petition No. 74 of 1962 filed by the Tilkayat in this
Court under Art. 32. By the said writ petition the
Tilkayat has challenged the vires of the Act on some
additional grounds. That is how the principal point
which arises for our decision in this group is in
regard to the Constitutional validity of the Act.
At this stage, it is relevant to indicate broadly
the contentions raised ·by the parties before the High
1963
'Tiikayat
Shri Gtnimdlo{ji
MtthtJ.ruj ·
v.
State tJj R!ljaslhan
GtJjen(ragadkar~ J,
1963
7ilb)IGI
MN Gooittilolji
MeMr•j
••
S1411 oJ R<j11Stiln
G~1nbo1""'4r, J.
568 SUPREME COURt REPORtS [i964] VOL.
Court and the conclusions of the High Court dn the
points in controversy.
The Tilkayat contended
that the idol of Shri Shrinathji in the Nathdwara
Temple and all the property pertaining to it were
his private properties and as such, the State Legis·
lature was not competent to pass the Act.
In the
alternative, it was urged that even if the Nathdwara
Temple is held to be a public temple and the Tilkayat
the Mahant or She bait. in charge of it, as such
Mahant or Shebait he had a beneficial interest in the
office of the high priest as well as the properties of the
temple and it is on that footing that the validity of
the Act was challenged under Art. 19 (1) (f) of the
Constitution. Incidentally the argument for
the
Tilkayat was that the idols of Shri Navnit Priyaji
and Shri Madan Mohanlalji were his private idols
and the property pertaining to them was in any ca~e
not the property in which the public co.uld be
~aid
to be interested. The Denomination substantially
supported the Tilkayat's case. In addition, it urged
that if the temple was held to be a public temple,
then the Act would be invalid because it contravened
the fundamental rights guaranteed to the denomination under Art. 25 (l) and Art. 26 (b) and (c) of the
Constitution. Ghanshyamlalji pleaded title in himself and challenged the validity of the Act on the
ground that it contravened his rights under Art.
19 (l) (f).
On the other hand, the State of Rajasthan
urged that the
Nathdwara Temple was a public
temple and the Tilkayat was no more and no better
than its manager. As such, he had no substantial benefical interest in the property of the temfle. The contention that the Tilkayat's fundamenta rights under
Art. 19 (1) (f) have been contravened by the Act was
denied; and the plea of the Denomination that the
fundamental rights guaranteed to it under Arts. 25 (1)
and 26 (b) and (c) had been infringed was also dispu·
ted. It was urged that the law was prefectly valid and
1 S.d.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
569
did no more than regulate the administration of the
property of the temple as contemplated by Art. 26 (c)
of the Constitution. The Tilkayat's claim that the
two idols of Navnit Priyaji and Madan Mohanlalji
were his private idols was also challenged. Against
Ghanshyamlalji's petition, it was urged that it raised
several disputed questions of fact wpich could not be
appropriately tried in proceedings under Art. 226.
The High Court has upheld the plea raised by
the State against the competence of Ghanshyamlalji's
petition. We 'Ought to add that the State had contended that the Tilkayat's case about the character
of the temple was also a mixed question of fact and
law and so, it could not be properly tried in writ
proceedings .. The High Court,. however, he)d t.hat it
would be inexpedient to adopt .a technical attitq.de
in this matter and it allowed the merits of the dispute
to be tried before it on the assurance given by the
learned counsel appearing for the Tilkayat that the
character of the property should be dealt with on the
documentary evidence adduced by him. Considering
the documentary evidence, the High Court came to
the conclusion that the temple is a public temple. -
It examined the several Firmans and Sanads on
which- reliance was placed by the Tilkayat and it
thought that the said grants supported the plea of the
State that the temple was not the private temple of
the Tilkayat. It has, however, found
that the
Tilkayat is a spiritual head of the Denomination as
well as the spiritual head of the temple of Shrinathji.
He alone is entitled to perform 'Seva' and the other
religious functions of the temple. In its opinion,
the two minior idols of Navnit Priyaji and Madan
Mohanlalji were the private idols of the Tilkayat
and so, that part of the definition which included
them within the temple of Shrinathji was struck down
as invalid. In this connection, the High Court has
very strongly relied on the Firman issued by the
Maharana ofUdaipur on December 31, 1934, and it
IJ63
Ti/U;>.,
Mri G<Wini/o(j i
M•h•aj
v.
Stale tJj &jastlum
G•j•nirq•lklr, J.
1963
TilU,1<ll
Slrti Gocit1llc1ji
M•"-1tt•j
v.
Sl•t1 ef Raj1111Mn
G•i""'8&•4"r, J.
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL.
has observed that this Firman clearly established the
fact that the temple was a public temple, that the
Tilkaya twas 110 more than a Custodian, :-.fan ager
and Trustee of the property belonging to the temple
and that the State had the absolute right to
supervise that the property dedicated to the shrine
was used for legitimate purposes of the shrine.
Havin~ found that the Tilkayat was the head of the
denommation and the head priest of the temple, the
High Court conceded in his favour the right of resi·
dence, the right to distribute Prasad and the right to
conduct or supervise the worship and the performance of the Seva in the temple. In the light of
these rights the High Court held that the Tilkayat
had a beneficial interest in the properties of the
temple and as such, was entitled to contend that the
said rights were protected under Art. 19 (1) (f) and
could not be contravened by the Legislature.
The
High Court then examined the relevant provisions of
the Act and held that, on the whole, the major
operative provisions of the Act did not contravene
the fundamental
rights
of the Tilkayat under
Art. 19 (I) (f); ss. 16, s. 28, sub-ss. (2) and (3),
s. 30 (2) (a), ss. 36 & 3i, however, did contravene
the Tilkayat's fundamental rights acccording to the
High Court, and so, the said sections and the part of
the definition of 'temple' ins. 2 (viii) were struck
down by the High Court as ultra vire,,.
The plea
that the fundamental rights under Art. 25 (I) and
Art. 26 (b) and (c) were contraveneisd did not appeal
to the High Court to
be well-founded.
In the
result, the substantial part of the Act has been held
to be valid. It appears that before the High Court
a plea was raised by the Tilkayat that his rights under
Arts. 14 and 31 (2) had been contravened by the
Act.
These pleas have been rejected by the High
Court and they have been more particularly and
specifically urged before us by the Tilkayat in his
Writ Petition No. i4 of 1962.
That, in brief, is the
,.
•
i. S.C.R. SUPREME COUR t REPORTS
571
nature of the findings recorded by the High Court
in the three writ petitions filed before it.
Before dealing with the merits of tte present
dispute, it is necessary to set out brie!ly the historical
background of the temple of Shrinathji at Nathdwara
and the incidents in ·relation to the management of
its properties which ultimately led to the Act.
The
temple of Shrinathji at Nathdwara holds a very high
place among the Hindu temples in this country and
is looked upon with great reverence by the Hindus in
general and the Vaishna v followers of Vallabha in
particular.
As in the case of other ancient revered
Hindu temples, so in the case of the Shrinathji temple '
at.Nathdwara, mythology has woven an attractive .
web about
the
genesis of its
construction at
Nathdwara. Part of it may be history and part may
be fiction, but the story is handed down from gene·
ration 10 generation of devotees and is believed by_ all
of them to be true. This temple is visited by thous.;.1ds
of Hindu devotees in general and by the followers of
the Pushtimargiya Vaishnava Sampradaya in particular. The followers of Vallabha who constitute a
denomination are popularly known as such.
The
denomination was founded by Vallabha (1479-1531
A. D.)* He was the son of· a Tailanga Brahmin named
Lakshmana Bhatt. On one occasion, Lakshmana Bhatt
had gone on pilgrimage to Banaras with his wife
Elamagara. On the way, she gave birth ta a sori in
1479 A. D. That son was known as Vallabha. It is
said that God Gopala Krishna manifested himself to
Vallahha on the Govardhana Hill by the name of
Devadamana, also known as Shrinathji.
Vallabha
saw the vision in his dream and he was commanded
by God Gopala Krishna to erect a shrine for Him
and to propagate amongst his followers the cult of
worshipping Him in order to obtain salvation (').
Vallabha then went to the hill and he found the
image corresponding to the vision which he had seen
in this dream. Soon thereafter, he got a small
*Some ~cholar~ think that \ 7alfo.hha ,\·a<i born in 1473 A:D .. vide The
Cultural Heritage ol India vol. Ill at p. 347.
1963
T.tkayaJ
Shri GninJl,lji
Mc/Ju6}
••
State •f R4;..sthan
(1) Bhandarkar on 'Vaishnavism, S'aivi!m & Minor Religious aystem.s at p; 77,
'63
TiLll!J•I
·
SliTi G1r:'.rr,/lclji
MaltsrtJi
. v.
Slatt ef N•j&Jtlre
572 SUPllMi COURT REPORTS [1964'] VOL.
temple built at Giriraj and-installed the image in the
said temple. It is believed that this happened in
i500 A. D .. A devotee named Ramdas Chowdhri
was entrusted with the task of serving in the temple .
Later on, a rich merchant named Pooranmal was
asked by Govardhannathji to build a big temple for
him. The building of the temple took as many as
20 years and when it was completed, the Image was
installed there by Vallabha himself and he enga1'ed
Bengali Brahmins as priests ~n the said temple, (' ).
In course of time, Vallabha was succeeded by
his son Vithaltiathji who was both in learning and
in saintly character a worthy son of a worthy father.
Vithalnath had great organising capacity and his
work
was
actuated by missionary zeal.
In the
denomination, Vallabha is described as Acharya or
Maha Prabhuji and Vithalnath is described as Gosain
or Goswamin. It is said that Vithalnath removed
the idol of St.rinathji to another temple which had
been built by him. It is not known whether any idol
was installed in the earlier temple.
Vithalnath lived
during the period of Akbar when
the political
atmosphere in the c;ountry in Northern India was
actuated by a spirit of tolerance. It appears that
Akbar heard about the saintly reputation of Vithalnath and issued a Firman granting land in Mowza
of Jatipura to
Vithalnathji
in order to build
building11, gardens, cowsheds and workshops for the
temple of Govardhannathji.
This Firman was issued.
in 1693 A. D.
Later, Emperor Shahajahan also
issued another Firman on October 2, 163 3, which
shows that some land was being ranted by the
Emperor for the use and expenses o Thakurdwara
exempt from payment of dues.
Goswami Vithalnath had seven sons. The tradi·
tion of the denomination believes that besides the idol
of Shrinathji Vithalnathji received from his father
(I) .Bliai M1nilal 0. Porekh'a 'A Religion of Grace',
•
'
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
573
seven other idols which were also "Swaroops" (mani·
festations) of Lord Krishna. Before his death, Vithal·
nathji entrusted the principal idol of Shrinathji, to
his eldest son Girdharji and the other idols were given
over to each one of his other sons.
These brothers
in turn founded separate shrines at various places
which are also held by the members of the denomi·
nation in high esteem and reverence. .
When
Aurangzeb came on the throne, the
genial atmosphere of tolerance disappeared and the
Hindu temples were exposed to risk and danger of
Aurangzeb's intolerant and bigoted activities. Col.
Todd in the first volume of his 'Annals of Rajasthan'
at p. 451 says that "when Aurangzeb prescribed
Kanaya and rendered his shrines impure throughout
Vrij, Rana Raj Singh offered the heads of one hundred
thousand Rajpoots for his service, and the God was
conducted by the route of Kotah and Rampoora to
M~war. An omen decided the spot of his future
residence.
As he journeyed to gain the capital of
the Sessodias, the chariot-wheel sunk deep into the
earth and defied extrication; upon which the Sookuni
(augur) interpreted the pleasure of the deity that he
desired to dwell there. This circumstance occurred at
an inconsiderable village called Siarh, in the fief of
Dailwara, one of the sixteen nobles of Mewar.
Rejoiced at this decided manifestation of favour, the
chief hastened to make a perpetual gift of the village
and its lands which was speedily confirmed by the
patent of the Rana. Nathji (the god) was removed
from his car, and in due time a tempte was erected
for his reception, when the hamlet of Siarh became
the town of Nathdwara. This happened about 1671
A. D." This according ·to the tradition, is the
genesis
of
the construction of the temple at
Nathdwara. Since then, the religious reputation of
the temple has ~rown by leaps and bounds and today it can legitimately claim to be one of the few
leading religious temples of the Hindus. Several
1963
Tilkayat
Shri Gouirua.Jji
Maharaj
v.
Stat1 of Rajastltan
196:1
T1U·•yol
Shri Go; in1/,;/ji
Mahar"J
v.
S141t of R1Jja.sthari
Cajtnb~11dkar, J.
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
grants were made and thousands of devotees visiting
the temple in reverence made offerings to the temple
almost everyday throughout the year.
No wonder
that the tern pie has now become one of the richest
religious institutions in the country.
The succession to the Gaddi of the Tilkayat
has, from the beginning, been governed by the rule
ot Primogeniture.
This succession received recogni·
tion from the rulers of Mewar from time to time.
It appears that in 1813 A. D.
Tilkayat Govindlalji
was adopted by the widow of Tilkayat Damodarji
and the ruler of .l\lewar recognised the said adoption.
Later, the relations between the ruler of Mewar and
the Tilkayat were strained during the time of
Tilkayat Girdharlalji. It seems that the Tilkayat
was not content with the position of a spiritual leader
of the denomination but he began to claim special
secular rights, and when the Darbar of Udaipur
placed the vilhges hdonginc; to the
Nathdwara
Temple under attacl1mcnt, a protest was made by
the members of the denomination on behalf of the
Tilkayat. It was as a result of this strained relation·
ship between the Darbar and the Tilkayat that in 1876
Tilkayat Girdharlalji was deposed and was deported
from Nathdwara by the or<ler passed by the Ran11 of
Mewar on May 8, l SiG ...... The reason given for
this drastic step was that the Tilkayat disobeyed the
orders of the ruling authority and so, could not be
allowed to function as such.
In place of the deposed
Tilkayat, his son Gordhanlalji was
appointed as
Tilkayat. Girdharialji then went to Bombay and
litigation started between him and his Tilkayat son
in respect of e>;tensive
properties
in Bombay.
Girdharlalji claimed the properties as his own whereas his Tilkayat
son urged that the fact that
Girdharlalji had been deposed
by the Rana of
Udaipur showed that the properties no longer vested
in him.
ft appears that the Bombay High Court ·
consistently took the view that the order passed by
.
l S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
575
the Rana ofUdaipur on May 8, 1876, was an act
of a foreign State and did not effect his right to
property
in
Bombay.
It
was
observed
that
Girdharlalji was regarded as owner of the property,
he had not lost his right as such to the said property in
consequence of his deposition, and if he was merely a
trustee, he had not been removed from his office by
any competent Tribunal vide Nanabai v. Shriman
Goswami Girdharji (1). Goswami
Shri Girdharji
Maharaj Shri Govindraiji J11aharaj
Tilkayat v.
Madhowdas Premji and Goswami Shri Govardhanlalji
Girdharji Maharaj (') and Shriman Goswami Shri
108 Shri Govardhanlalji Girdharlalji v. Goswami
Shri Girdharlalji Govindrajji (3). So f<ir as the
N athd wara temple and the properties situated in
Mewar were concerned, the Tilkayat Gordhanlalji
who had been appointed by the Rana of Udaipur
continued to be in possession and management of the
same.
·
Unfortunately, in 1933, another occasion arose
when the Rana of Udaipur had to take drastic action.
After the death of Goverdhanlalji on September 21,
1933, his grand
son Damodarlalji became the
Tilkayat. His conduct. however, showed that he
did not deserve to be a spiritual leader of the denomination and could not be left in charge of the
religious
affairs
of
the
Shrinathji
temple at
Nathdwara. That is why on October 10, 1933, he
wa5 deposed and his son Govindlalji, the present
Tilkayat, was appointed the Tilkayat of the temple.
Before adopting this course, the Rana had given
ample opportunities to Damodarlalji to improve his
conduct, but despite the promises made by him
D.imodarlalji persisted in the course of behaviour
which he had adopted and so, the Darbar was left
with no othar alternatiye but to depose him. That
is how the present Tilkayat's regime began even
during the lifetime of his father.
(l] 12 Bom. 351.
(2) 17 Bom. 600.
(3) 17 Bom, 620
1963
Tilka,.vet
!>hri .t Guvindla/j •
Maharaj
y,
Stat(of Rqjast""'
G•j1ntlragadlrar, J.
1163_ ..
1iik.,.t .
SJ ri G1Wti/(llji
MllltlTaj
••
Sim of ~stM•
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964]VOL.
As
on the occasion of the deposition of
Girdharlalji in 1833, so on the occa~ion of the depo·
sition of Damodarlalji, litigation followed in respect
of Bombay properties.
On
January
6,
1934,
Damodarlalji filed a suit in the Bombay High Court
(No. 23 of 1934) against the Tilkayat and other
persons representing the denomination, In this suit,
he claimed a declaration that he was entitled to and
had become the owner of all the properties mentioned
in the plaint and that he was the owner of all the
rights, presents, offerings, and emoluments arising in
and accruingfrom
the ownership of the idols,
Shrinathji and Shri Navnit Priyaji as well a~ his
position as the Tilkayat Maliaraj in due course of
his succession. J,1 the said suit. the idols of Shrinathji
arid Shri Navnit Priyaji were added as defendants.
At. that time, the Tilkayat was a minor. Written
statements were filed on his behalf and on behalf
of the two idols.
A counter claim was preferred on
behalf M the idol< tkll t 11c properties belonged to
them.
Subsequently, the suit filed by Damodarlalji
was withdrawn; but the counterclaim made by the
idols was referred to the sole arbitration and final
determination of Sir Chimanlal H. Setalvad, a leading Advocate of the Bombay High Court.
On
April 10, 1942, the arbitrator made his award and
in due course, a decree was passed in terms of the
said award on September 8, l!l42. This decree provided
that
all the
properties,
movable, and
immovable,
and
all
offerings
and
Bhents
donated to the idol
of Shri11athj i or for
its
worship or benefit belonged
to
the said idol,
whereas properties donated, dedicated or offered to
the Tilkayat Maharaj for the time being, or at the
Krishna Bhandar Pedhis if donated, dedicated 0r
offered for the worship or benefit of the idol belonged to the said idol.
It also provided that the
Tilkayat Maharaj for the time being in actual charge
at Nathdwara is entitled to hold, use and manage
the "properties of the said idol according to the
•
l S.C.k.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
577
usage of the Vallabhi Sampradaya." The said
award and the decree which followed in terms of it
were naturally confined
to the properties in the
territories which then comprised British India and
did not include any properties in the territories ·which
then formed part of princely Indla or Native States
as they were then known.
Meanwhile, after Damodarlalji was deposed
and his son Govindlalji was appointed the Tilkayat,
the Rana of Udaipur issued a Firman on Decem·
ber 31, 1934.
By this Firman it was laid down that
the shrine of Shrinathji had always been and was
a religious institution
for the followers of the
Vaishnavas
Sampradayak and all the properties
offered at the shrine were the property of th,e si)rine
and that the Tilkayat Maharaj was merely a Custo·
dian,. Manager and Trustee. of the said proprrty for
the shrine. It also provided
that the Udaipur
Darbar had absolute right to supervise that the
property dedicated _to the shrine is used for legitimate
purpose of the shrine. It also made· certain oth«
provisions to which we shall have occasion to return
later.
When
he
was
appointed
the Tilkayat,
Qovindlalji was a minor and so, the management of
the temple and the property remained with the Court
ol Wards, till April 1, 1948. On that date, the
management of the Court of Wards was withdrawn
and the charge of the property was handed over .. to
the Tilkayat. It appears that the ·management of
affairs by the Tilkayat was not very liappy or
successful and the estate faced financial difficulties.
In order to meet this difficult situation the T~lkayat
appointed a ·committee of management. corisisting
of 12 members belonging to the denomination some
time in 19.52. This wii.~ followed .by another commi·
ttee of 21 ·members appointed ori June II, i953 •
.. Whil,t this• latter committee' was In Charge of the
1969
'Iilk"Jll(
Shri OoDlnll•U i
Ma/uJtqj
,
y. '
.
Slalt •/ R4/dl"'°"
---
O•J••1•.·1
r.u.,.,
SArl GoWulloffe
M.Uqj
'
•.
Slelef ~llltMn
~"'"""· /,
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964)VOL ..
management, some valuables stored and locked in the
room in the premises of the Temple of Shrinathji were
removed by the Tilkayat in December, 1957. This
news created excitement amongst the members of the
public in general and the followers of the denomination in particular, and so, the Rajasthan Government
appointed a Commission of Enquiry. In the preamble
to the notification by which the Commission of
Enquiry was appointed, it was stated that the State
of Ra jasthan as the successor of the covenanting State
of Mewar had a special responsibility to supervise
that the endowments and properties dedicated to .the
shrine are safeguarded and used for the legitimate
pur~es of the shrine.
The Commission of the
Enquiry made its report on October II, 1959. This
report passed severe strictures against the conduct of
the Tilkayat. At this stage, we ought to add that
the dispute between the Tilkayat and the Rajasthan
Government as to the ownership of the valuable
articles removed from the temple was later referred
to the sole arbitration of Mr. Mahajan, the retired
Chief Justi.ce of this Court.
The arbitrator made
his award on September 12, 1961, and held that
except in regard to the items specified by him in his
award, the rest of the property belonged to the
Tilkayat; and he found that when the Tilkayat
removed the properties, he believed that they were
his persona 1 properties.
It was in the background of these events that
the State of Rajasthan thought it necessary that a
scheme should be drafted for the .nauagement of the
Temple and this proposal received the approval of
the 'J'.ilkayat. In order to give effect to this proposal·
it was agreed between the parties that a suit under,
s. 92, Code of Civil Procedure. should be filed in the·
Court of the District Judge at Udaipur. The parte
then thought that the suit would be non-contentious
and would speedily end in a scheme of ma:i8ea r
ment being drafted with the consent of parties
i S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
579
Accordingly, suit No. 1 of 1956 was filed in the District Court at Udaipur, and in accordance with the
agreement which he had reached with the authorities,
the Tilkayat filed a non contentious written statement.
However, before the suit could make any appreciable
progress, Ghanshyamlalji and Baba Raj vi, the son of
Tilkayat, applied to be made parties to the suit and
it became clear that these added parties desired to
raise contention~ in the suit and that entirely changed
the complexion of the litigation. It was then obvious
that the litigation wou Id be a long-drawn out affair
and the object of evolving a satisfactory scheme ~or
the management of the affairs of the temple would
not be achieved until the litigation went through a
protracted course.
It was under these circumstances that the
Governor of Rajasthan promulgated an Ordinance
called the Nathdwara Ordinance, J959 '(No. II
of 1959)
on February 6, 19J9. The Tilkayat
immediately filed his Writ Petition No. 90 of 1959
challenging the validity of the said Ordinance. The
Ordinance was in due course replaced by Act 13
of 1959 and the Tilkayat was allowed to amend his
original writ petition so as to challenge the vires of
tI.e
Act.
Shortly
stat ~d, this
is the historical
background of the present dispute.
The first question which calls for our decision
is whether the tenets of the Valla bh denomination
and its religious practices postulate and require that
the worship by the devotees should be performed at
the private temple owned and managed by the
Tilkayat, and so, the existence of public temples is
inconsistent with the said tenets and practices. In
support of this argument, the
learned AttorneyGeneral has placed strong reliance on the observadons made by Dr. Bhandarkar in his
work on
Vaisnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems,
ti 80. In the section dealing with Vallabh and his
1963
Tiltayat
jhri Goviruilolji
Maharaj
v,
State of RajtJJth!ln.
Gqjendra.fadkar, J,
1963
r.u., ..
~ri GoriNlloJji
MalatJroj
Y.
S1a11 •I R~"'tli.n
CojlodrU"dlar, J.
I
1>80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL"
school; the learned Doctor has incidentally observed
that the Gurus of this sect ordinarily called Maharajs
are descendants of the seven sons of Vithalesa. Each
GiJru has a temple of his own, and there are no public
places of worship.
He has also added that the
mfluence exercised by Vallabh and his successors
over their adherents is kept up by the fact that God
cannot be
worshipped indcpendenily in a public
place of worship, but in the house and temple of the
Guru or the Maharaj which, therefore, has to be
regularly visited by the devotees with offerings. These
temples are generally described as Havelis and the
argument is that the said description also brings out
the fact that the temples are private temples owned
by the Tilkayat of the day.
It· is true that the
observations made by Dr. Bhandarkar lend support
to the contention raised before us by the learned
Attorney-General on behalf of the Tilkayat, but if
the discussion contained in Dr.