# NAR HARi SASTRI AND OTHERS v. SHRI BADRINATH TEMPLE COMMITTEE

- **Citation:** [1952] 1 S.C.R. 849
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1952
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1951
- **Bench:** Saiyad Fazl Ali J, MuKHERJEA, DAs
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/nar-hari-sastri-and-others-v-shri-badrinath-temple-committee-72
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

849
Hindu law-Religious Endowments-Right to worship-Right
of Pandas
to accompany
worshippers to
temple-Bye-law
of
temple committee to prohibit taking of gifts within temple precincts
-Validity-Badrinath Temple Act, 1939, ss. 3, 4.
The right of the Deoprayagi Pandas to enter the Badrinath
Temple along with their Yajmans is not a precarious or
permissive right depending for its existence on the arbitrary
discretion of the temple authorities; it is a legal right in the true
sense of the expression, but it can be exercised only subject to
the restrictions which the temple committee may impose in good
faith for maintenance of order and decorum within the
temple
and for ensuring proper performance of customary worship.
There is nothing in the Badrinath Temple Act, 1939, which
vests in the temple committee or the idol, gifts made to Pandas
within the precincts of the temple.
But bye-law (8) of the Puja
Bye-laws framed by the temple committee which forbids the
acceptance of gifts
by
any person within the precincts of the
temple unless he comes within the category
of persons
specifically authorised by the committee to receive the same is a valid
bye-law, which it was quite competent for the committee to enact
under the terms of clauses ( m) and ( n) of sec. 25 of the Act
and
in view of this bye-law the Pandas are not entitled to a declaration by the Court that they have a right to take, within the
precincts of the temple, whatever they receive as gifts
at
the
time of worship.
C1VIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION :
Civil
Appeal
No. 105 of 1951.
On appeal from the judgment and decree dated
the 22nd November, 1946, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Verma C.J. and Mathur J.)
in
First Appeal :t)To. 310 of 1941 arising out of judgment
and decree dated the 4th March, 1941, of the Court of
the Senior Civil Judge of Pauri, Garhwal, in Original
Suit No. 1 of 1934.
K. S. Krishnaswamy Iyengar (R. C. Ghatak and
N. C. Sen, with him) for the appellants.
_..,.
S. K. Dar (D. D. Unival, with him) for the respondent.
1952
May 9.
1952
Nar Hari Sastri
and Others
v;
Shri Badrinath
Temple
Committee.
M uk heriea /.
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952)
1952. May 9. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
MuKHERJEA J.-The
sanctity
which
orthodox
Hindu thought and ;Eeeling attribute to 1visiting of
sacred places is nowhere better illustrated than in the
vast concourse of
pilgrims, who are
attracted every
year, from all parts of India, to the mountain shrines
at Badrinath, situated, high up in the Himalayas, in
the District of Garhwal.
The place to which
the
appellation od' 'Puri' is given, contains a number of
temples but the principal temple is the one where the
idol
Badrinath along with
some
other subsidiary
idols is in.tailed. This main temple is divided into
three portions or apartments, and to the innermost
portion which is
considered to be
the holiest and
where the deities are located, no pilgrim is allowed
access.
The pilgrims gather in the middle room;
they have 'darshan' or look at the diety from this
place and there also they
make their offerings
and
perform
other . rites
of individual worship.
The last
room is an outer apartment which is used as a sort of
waiting
place
for
the
worshippers.
Outside
the
temple and at a short distance from it, there is a hot
spring known as Tapta Kundu where the worshippers
take ceremonial bath before they enter into the temple
and to the Tapta Kundu they come back again after
the ceremonies are over.
The temple at Badrinath is an ancient institution and
is admittedly a public place of worship for the Hindus.
The chief priest or ministrant of the temple is known
by the name of 'Rawal' who originally looked after
both· the spiritual
and temporal
affairs of the idol
subject to certain rights of supervision and control
cxercisab'.le
by
the
Tehri Durbar
which, however,
were not very clearly defined.
It appears that there was a scheme for the management of the temple framed by the Commissioner of
Kumaun
division,
within w

## Text

_Characters 0–39,601 of 44,937. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39601 for what follows._

"'
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
NAR HARi SASTRI AND OTHERS
v.
SHRI BADRINATH TEMPLE COMMITTEE.
[SAIYAD FAZL ALI J., MuKHERJEA and DAs JJ.]
849
Hindu law-Religious Endowments-Right to worship-Right
of Pandas
to accompany
worshippers to
temple-Bye-law
of
temple committee to prohibit taking of gifts within temple precincts
-Validity-Badrinath Temple Act, 1939, ss. 3, 4.
The right of the Deoprayagi Pandas to enter the Badrinath
Temple along with their Yajmans is not a precarious or
permissive right depending for its existence on the arbitrary
discretion of the temple authorities; it is a legal right in the true
sense of the expression, but it can be exercised only subject to
the restrictions which the temple committee may impose in good
faith for maintenance of order and decorum within the
temple
and for ensuring proper performance of customary worship.
There is nothing in the Badrinath Temple Act, 1939, which
vests in the temple committee or the idol, gifts made to Pandas
within the precincts of the temple.
But bye-law (8) of the Puja
Bye-laws framed by the temple committee which forbids the
acceptance of gifts
by
any person within the precincts of the
temple unless he comes within the category
of persons
specifically authorised by the committee to receive the same is a valid
bye-law, which it was quite competent for the committee to enact
under the terms of clauses ( m) and ( n) of sec. 25 of the Act
and
in view of this bye-law the Pandas are not entitled to a declaration by the Court that they have a right to take, within the
precincts of the temple, whatever they receive as gifts
at
the
time of worship.
C1VIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION :
Civil
Appeal
No. 105 of 1951.
On appeal from the judgment and decree dated
the 22nd November, 1946, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Verma C.J. and Mathur J.)
in
First Appeal :t)To. 310 of 1941 arising out of judgment
and decree dated the 4th March, 1941, of the Court of
the Senior Civil Judge of Pauri, Garhwal, in Original
Suit No. 1 of 1934.
K. S. Krishnaswamy Iyengar (R. C. Ghatak and
N. C. Sen, with him) for the appellants.
_..,.
S. K. Dar (D. D. Unival, with him) for the respondent.
1952
May 9.
1952
Nar Hari Sastri
and Others
v;
Shri Badrinath
Temple
Committee.
M uk heriea /.
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952)
1952. May 9. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
MuKHERJEA J.-The
sanctity
which
orthodox
Hindu thought and ;Eeeling attribute to 1visiting of
sacred places is nowhere better illustrated than in the
vast concourse of
pilgrims, who are
attracted every
year, from all parts of India, to the mountain shrines
at Badrinath, situated, high up in the Himalayas, in
the District of Garhwal.
The place to which
the
appellation od' 'Puri' is given, contains a number of
temples but the principal temple is the one where the
idol
Badrinath along with
some
other subsidiary
idols is in.tailed. This main temple is divided into
three portions or apartments, and to the innermost
portion which is
considered to be
the holiest and
where the deities are located, no pilgrim is allowed
access.
The pilgrims gather in the middle room;
they have 'darshan' or look at the diety from this
place and there also they
make their offerings
and
perform
other . rites
of individual worship.
The last
room is an outer apartment which is used as a sort of
waiting
place
for
the
worshippers.
Outside
the
temple and at a short distance from it, there is a hot
spring known as Tapta Kundu where the worshippers
take ceremonial bath before they enter into the temple
and to the Tapta Kundu they come back again after
the ceremonies are over.
The temple at Badrinath is an ancient institution and
is admittedly a public place of worship for the Hindus.
The chief priest or ministrant of the temple is known
by the name of 'Rawal' who originally looked after
both· the spiritual
and temporal
affairs of the idol
subject to certain rights of supervision and control
cxercisab'.le
by
the
Tehri Durbar
which, however,
were not very clearly defined.
It appears that there was a scheme for the management of the temple framed by the Commissioner of
Kumaun
division,
within whose jurisdiction Badrinath is situated, some time in the year 1899. Under
this
scheme,
'Rawal'
was
to
be
the
sole
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
851
trustee
of
the
Badrinath
temple
and
its
properties,
and the entire
management was entrusted
to him subject to his keeping accounts, which he
had to
submit for
approval
by the Tehri Durbar,
and making arrangements for the disposal and safe
custody
of
cash
receipts
and
other
non-perishable
valuables. This scheme apparently did not work well
and led to constant friction between the 'Rawal' on
the one hand and the Tehri Durbar on the other.
This
unsatisfactory state of affairs led to public agitation
and demand for reforms, and in 1939, the U.P. Legislature passed the Sri Badrinath Temple Act, the object
of which was to remove the chief defects in the existing system of management. The Act restricts the
'Rawal' to his priestly duties and the secular management is placed in the hands of a small committee, the
members
of which are partly elected
and
partly
nominated, powers being reserved to the Government
to take steps against the committee itself, if it is found
guilty
of
mismanagement. The
Act
preserves
the
traditional control of the Tehri Durbar.
_ The appellants before us, who were the plaintiffs in
the trial Court, claim to be Pandas associated
with
the
Badrinath
temple. The
Pandas
are
Brahmans
belonging to the priestly class and are found to exist
in almost all important public places of worship in
India. They are not temple pr'iests in the proper sense
of the expression and have nothing to do with the
regular worship of the idol which is carried on by the
Shebayat, the High Priest or the manager as the case
may be. Their chief duty consists in acting as guides
or escorts of the pilgrims, and taking them to various
places of worship acquainting them at the same time
with detailed
informations
regarding
the reputed
sanctity of each.
They look after the comforts of the
pilgrims and make arrangements for their boarding
and lodging and also act as Tirtha Purohits, in which
capacity they assist the pilgrims in the performance
of various acts of individual worship as distinguished
from the general worship which is conducted by or on
behalf of the temple authorities.
1952
N ar H ari Sastri
and Others
v.
Shri Badrinath
Temple
Committee.
Mukherjea /.
•
1952
N ar H ari Sastri
and Others
v.
Shri Badrinath
Temple
Committee.
Mukheriea /.
•
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
It 1s admitted that
there are several
classes
of
Pandas in Badrinath and the Deoprayagi Pandas to
which category the plaintiffs belong get normally the
charge of all the pilgrims that come from the plains,
whereas the Pandas
of the
'Dimn'
class act
as
attendants on all hill people. The people coming to
Badrinath from the plains generally follow the pilgrim's route
from Hardwar to Badrinath and in
this route,
at
a
distance
of
about
58 miles from
Hardwar,
stands the
place
known
as
Deoprayag
where all the Deoprayagi Pandas reside.
It is in the light of these few introductory facts that
we propose to follow the history of this litigation and
deal with the points in controversy that it has given
•-
rise to.
The suit was commenced by the appellants iJn the
Court of the Senior Civil Judge of Garhwal on 16th
April, 1934, and the only defendant in the suit, as it
was filed originally, was the 'Rawal' who was at that
time in entire charge of the Badrinath Institution,
both as Trustee and High Priest. The suit was a representative one and purported to be brought on behalf of all the
Deoprayagi Pandas
and permission of
the Court under Order I, rule 8, of the Civil Procedure Code was duly taken. The allegations in the
plaint in substance are that the plaintiffs who are a
body
of
Brahman Purohits residing at Deoprayag
and also at Badrinath have the right, by immemorial
custom, to act as Pandas and 'Tirtha Purohits' of
the pilgrims at Badrinath.
~t is said that in performance
of
their duties they meet the pilgrims at
Hardwar and conduct them throughout the pilgrimage
to different places
of
sanctity
and finally
to
Badrinath itself. Besides
looking to
their creature
comforts, they assit the pilgrims, while they stay at
Badrin.ath, in having their ceremonial ablutions in the
'Tapta Kundu' and then conduct them into the precincts of the temple
and assist them in having
L
.. -
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
853
'darshan' of the idols and making offerings to them.
The plaintiffs aver that because of the support that
they lent to the transfer of the management of the
temple from the 'Rawal' to the Tehri Durbar, the
defendant 'Rawal' was displeased with them and in
August 1933, wrongfully and without any just cause
or excuse, obstructed and threatened to obstruct the
plaintiffs
from entering the precincts of the
temple
along with their Yajmans or clients and unlawfully
restrained
them from assisting the pilgrims in the
usu:ll way at the time of 'darshan' and worship of
the deities inside the temple. The reliefs. prayed for
in the pliint after it· was amended stand as follows:-
( I) That a declaration be gran~ d .nat the plaintiffs are
1the Pandas of Badrinath .cmple and
that
they have a right to personally go into the precincts
of the Badrinath temple at all times and on all
occasions without obstruction when the said temple
is open for doing 'darshan', worship etc.
(2) That the plaintiffs have the right freely to go
into the precincts of the said
temple with their
Yajmans or clients whenever it is open for assisting
them in the matter of 'darshan' or worship of God
Badrinarayan and other deities and in the matter of
making offerings to them.
(3) That the plaintiffs have the right to take
within the precincts of the said temple whatever is put
into their hands as gift by their clients at the time of
worship etc.
( 4) That a perpetual !IlJUnction be issued restraiBing the defendant 'Rawal' from interfering with
the immemorial rights of the plaintiffs.
The defendant, in his written statement, admitted
that the Pandas did sometimes accompany rich pilgrims as their guides and receive presents from them
for the services they rendered. It was also admitted
that
the
plaintiffs in their individual capacity as
Hindus had the right to enter the temple of Badrinath
for purposes of worship.
It was asserted, however,
6-9 S.C. India/71
1952
Nar Hari Sastri ·
and Others
v.
Shri Badrinath
Temple
Committee.
Mukheriea /.
1952
Nar Hari Sastri
and Others
v.
Shri Badrinath
Temple
Commi'ttee.
Muk_herjea /.
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
that it was neither necessary nor desirable that the
plaintiffs should be allowed to accompany their Yajmans or clients into the temple, as the defendant h'imself made adequate arrangements for 'darshan'
and
worship by the pilgrims; and he, as the sole trustee
and manager of the temple, had the right to regulate
entry into . the temple so that over-crowding might be
avoided and order maintained inside it.
lt was further
pleaded that the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by
res judicata and the law of limitation.
On these pleadings, two issues of a preliminary
nature were framed by the Civil Judge, one of them
being, whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by res
judicata. This issue was decided against the plaintiff
and the Civil Judge
dismissed the suit on 18-9-1934
holding that the suit was barred by the rule of res
judicata, as an earlier suit brought by five of the Deoprayagi Pandas and claiming identical reliefs against
the 'Rawal' was dismissed by the Commissioner of the
Kumaun Division
in the year
1896. Against this
order of dismissa~, an appeal was taken by the plaintiffs to the High Court of Allahabad and a Division
Bench of the High Court, by its judgment dated
23rd May,
1938, reversed the decision of the Civil
Judge
on
this
preliminary
point
and
remanded
the case for
hearing of
the
suit on
its
merits.
The case then went back before
the
Civil Judge
and
while
it was still
pending,
the .Sri
Badrinath Temple Act was passed. A temple committee
being formed in accordance with the provisions of this
Act the said committee through its Secretary, was
impleaded as Defendant No. 2 in the suit. The committee filed a fresh written sratement in which certain
additional grounds
were taken.
It was contended
primarily that the suit as framed, was not maintainable by reason ·. of the provisions of : Sri
Badrinath
Temple Act of 1939, whic\l abrogated all previous
rights and customs and vested the ownership of the
temple and its endowments in the temple committee.
It was asserted, further, that all gifts made within the
precincts of the temple
would vest in the temple
{
....J.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
855
commi.ittee under section 3(b) of the Act and that the
1952
committee had the absolute right to regulate entry of Nar Hari Sastri.
persons inside the temple.
and Others
A number of issues were framed after this written
statement was filed, and on hearing the evidence
adduced by the parties, the Civil Judge disposed of
the suit by his judgment dated 4th March, 1941.
The suit was decreed in part and the plaintiffs were
'given a declaration in their favour on one of the
points in an attenuated and restricted form. Besides
certain pleas in bar which were raised by the defendants in their written statements and in regard to
which the trial judge's decision was in favour of the
plaintiffs,
the
substantial
controversy
between the
parties centred round the two following points :
(1) Whether
the
Deoprayagi
Pandas could
accompany their Y ajmans or clients inside the temple
and ass~st ·them in the 'd'.arsihan' and worship of the
deities?
(2) Whether the Pandas would have the right to
accept within. the precincts
of the temple whatever
was paid
by
the
pilgrims
as gifts or presents
to them and not to the temple?
As regards the first point, the learned Civil Judge
reviewed the entire evidence relating to the practice of
admitting the Pandas along with their Yajmans inside
the temple, as it obtained from very early times down
to the date of the institution of the suit. It appears that
in 1892 certain rules were framed by the then 'Rawal'
for regulation •of pilgrims in the Badrinath temple, and
to these rules the Commis~ioner of Kumaun Division
accorded bis sanction on 4th July, 1892. One of these
rules, namely Rule (3), expressly laid down that "at the
time of 'darshan' by the pilgrims, no other persons and
Pandas shall be allowed to go inside the temple along
with the pilgrims". On 22nd October, 1894, an application was filed before the Commissioner of Kumaun
Division by some residents of Deoprayag complaining
of unjust prohi;bition from entering the temple by the
new manager and it was prayed that directions might
v.
Shri Badrinath.
Temple
Committee.
Mukheriea f.
1952
Nar Hari Sastri
and Others
v.
Shri Badrinath
Temple
Committee.
Mukherjea /.
856
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
be given to the said Manager to desist from
encroaching upon the time-l1onoured rights of the Pandas. On
28th October, 1894, the Commissioner ordered that a
copy of the petition might be sent to the Manager for
report and in the body of the order he recorded his
opinion that "the duty of the Pandas consists normally
in escorting the pilgrims to the temple precincts.
Their entering the temple can be permitted when they
did so as
pilgrims." The
petiti:On
was
eventually
rejected, and on 19th August, 1895, five Deoprayagi
Pandas filed a suit in the Court of the Deputy Collector, Garhwal, who was invested with the powers of a
Civil Court,
praying for a declaration of their right to
go inside the temple with their Yajmans which the
'Rawal' was not willing to allow unless· he gave special
permission. The trial
cqurt allowed
the plaintiffs'
prayer but, on appeal, the judgment was reversed and
the suit was dismissed. This order of dismissal was
affirmed on Second Appeal by the Commissfoner of
Kumaun Division who had the powers of a High Court
in regard to this area, by his order dated 9th March,
1896. This is the earli1er decision on the strength of
which the plea of res judicata was taken by the defendant._. in the present suit. According to · the learned
C1vil Judge, after ·the.rules as
mentioned above were
framed in 1892 and the judgment of the Commis--
sioner, Kumaun Division, in the Civil Suit was given
in 1896, it was the 'Rawa:.1' who decided whether or
not he would give permission to any particular Panda
to go inside the temple as an escon of his Yajmans and
practice was almost uniform on th.is point down to the
year 1903. The same practice prevailed, according to
the learned Judge, from 1903 to · 1920. From 1921,
however, the practice became lax to a great extent
and
from
the
evidence
of
respectable
witnesses
examined
on . 'behalf of the plaintiffs, the learned
Judge was of opinion that in many cases the Pandas
·were able to go ·inside the temple without any let
'
or hindrance and without seeking any express. permission from the 'Rawal'~ A definite
challenge
to
the
rights of the Pandas occurred ag~in in. 1933 which led
.. ..
.\.....
-·
.-~' -
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
857
to the institution of the present suit.
After reviewing
this eviidence, the learned Civil Judge discussed the
provisions of the Shri Badrinath Temple Act bearing
on this point and summed up his conclusions
as
follows:-
"In my view under the scheme of the Shri Badrinath
Act, the Pandas or pilgrims have no absofote right to
go inside the temple, regardless of the conditions imposed by the Committee about entry into the temple,
but ordinarily if the entry of the pilgrims or Pandas is
in accordance with the rules or bye-laws framed by
the Committee the pilgrims can always go inside
accompanied by their Pandas, who
are
entitled
as
devout Hindus to go inside the temple, and perform
worship there, and can assist their Yajmans also. In
other words, there is no right of the plaintiffs which
has to be recognised, and can be recognised, on the
grounds of custom, usage, or otherwise, that they can
without any let or hindrance and regardless of the
conditions
imposed
by
the
Committee,
enter
the
temple with the pilgrims whenever they like. Like
other pilgrims, and persons who are all subject to the
control of the conditions that may be imposed by the
Committee,
the Deoprayagi Pandas can also enter
the
temple, perform worship there, and even help their
Yajmans wh01 happen to be inside the temple. To lay
down an absolute prohibition against them would
not be in accordance
w~th the provisions of Shri
Badrinath Temple Act, and
similarly to recognise.
that they have · an absolute right to enter the temple
with the pilgrims, would also nullify a number of
prov1s10ns in the Shri Badrinath Temple Act. Issue
No. 2 rs decided accordingly in the negative, but
subject to . recognition of the conditional right of the
plaintiffs to accompany tlieir pilgrims and help them
in the 'darshan', as mentioned above subject to the
control of the Committee."
. In spite of this finding, which is certainly not very
definite
the
Court dismissed in toto - the plaintiffs'
prayer No. 2 in the plaint, the reason given being tliat
.
1952
Nar Hari Sastri
and Others
...
Shri Badrinath
Temple
Committe~.
Mukherjea /.
1952
N ar H ari Sastri
and Others
v.
Shri Badrinath
Temple
Committee.
Mukherjea /.
858
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952}
no absolute right
as was claimed by the plaintiffs was
established on the footing of a custom or otherwise.
As regards the other point, the learned Judge was
of opinion that although a Panda had no absolute right
to go inside the temple along with his clients, yet if
the committee or the temple authorities allowed him
to do so, there was nothing in law or custom which
could preven,t him from accepting a gift which any
pilgrim might desire to make in his favour. The result
was that the learned Judge gave the plaintiffs a declaration in the following terms :-
"The plaintiffs' suit is decreed for a declaration that
they have a right to accept within the precincts of the
temple whatever was put into their hands as gifts (Dan
or Dakshina or Shankalp)
by the pilgrims, for the
benefit of the plaintiffs and · not the temple, and to
retain such gifts for their personal benefit. ·This right
is however subject to the administrative control of the
temple committee so far as the maintenance of order
and decency and the enforcement of proper behaviour
within the temple are concerned. The exercise of this
right will further be restricted by any special or general
,,
condit10ns imposed by the Committee of management
under any bye-law' framedd by hit in a
1
ccordance with
.
the provisions of Shri Ba rinat
Temp e Act or any
other special law that may hereafter be applicable to
the temple."
The rest of the plaintiffs' claim was di,smissed.
Against this judgment, the plaintiffs took an appeal
to the High Court of Allahabad. The defendants also
~-
preferred
cross-objections
challenging
the
propriety
of that part of the trial Court's decree which was in
favour of the plaintiffs. The appeal was heard by a
Division
Bench
consisting
of. Varma
C. J.
and
Mathur J. and, by their judgment dated 22nd November, 1946, the learned Judges dismissed the plaintiffs'
appeal and allowed the cross objections filed by the
defendants. Thus, the
decision
resulted in a total
"'-'""-
dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit. It is from this judgment that the present appeal has come before us.
•
-
Ji,
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
859
It was held by the High Court that the plaintiffs
failed miserably to
esta81ish that there was any immemorial usage in existence under which they were
entitled to accompany the pilgrims, as of right, inside
the precincts of the temple.
It was held also that even
if any such usage existed, that must be deemed to have
been abrogated by the provisions of Shri Badrinath
Temple Act, and reference was made in this connection to section 25 (1) (m) of the Act, which empowers the temple committee tc; frame bye-laws not
inconsistent with the
provision~ of
the: Act for the
"maintenance of order inside the temple and regulating
the entry of persons therein."
It is to be noted that after the judgment of the trial
court was delivered and the appeal came up for hearing before the High Court,
the
Badrinath Temple
Committee passed a resolution which was approved of
by the Governor of the U.P. State, and was to the
following effect:-
"Subject to the provision of bye-laws and any
direction given by the committee, the Pandas can
accompany their Yajmans within the temple."
This resolution was communicated to the plaintiffs
by
the 2nd
defendant
by a letter dated 29th May,
1942, and undoubtedly after passing of this resolution, tht: grievance of the plaintiffs in regard to temple
entry disappeared to a large extent. The H1gh Court
however, refused to give the plaintiffs a declaration
of their right in this respect even in a limited form as,
jn its opinion, the plaintiffs could not claim such declaration as a matter of right. The view taken by the
High Court seems to be that it is entirely for the
committee to decide, whether the Pandas should be
allowed to enter the temple at all, and if so, to what
extent and under what conditions.
On the 1other question irdating to ',the right of the
plaintiffs to accept gifts made in their favour by the
pilgrims within the precincts of the temple, it was
held by the High Court that under section 3(b) of
the Shri Badrinath Temple Act, such gifts would become part of the endownment, and the donees would be
1952
Nar Hari Sastri
and Others
v.
Shri Badrinath
Temple
Committee.
Mukherjea /.
1952
Nar Hari SOstri
and Others
v.
Shri Badrinath
Temple
Com111;ttcc;
Muk_herjea /.
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
incapable of laying any claim to the same. It was,
further, held that bye-law (8) of the Puja Bye-laws
, framed
by the temple committee which prevents a
person other. than those whose rights have been spec\-
fically recognised by the Committee, from receiving
any gifts within the precincts of the temple, was
quite a legitimate provision the making of which was
within the rule-making
authority of the committee of
management. It was held, therefore, that in view of
this rule,
the plaintiffs' , claim, in regard to -receiving
of gifts
within the
temple was
not maintainable
in law.
Mr. Iyengar, appearing in support of the appeal before us, has assailed the propriety of the High Court's
decision on both these points.
The first point that requires consideration is whether
the plaintiffs can, on the facts admitted and found in
this case, claim a declaration of their right to accompany the Y ajmans or clients inside the Badrinath
temple
and
assist them in having 'darshan' of the
deities and in performing such ceremonies as individual worshippers may perform. Mr. Dar, who appears
on behalf of the respondents, draws our attention to
the fact that this right has practically been conceded
by the temple cammitJtee in their resolution passed in
March, 1942, referred to , already.
The learned counsel
has very · fairly stated to us that he would have no
objection if the plaintiffs are given a declaration of
their rights in this respect in some suitable form as
might safeguard their interest, without in any way
trenching upon the rights of temple committee and
thereby obviate all disputes in the future.
It seems to us that the approach of the court below
~o -~ ~SfPect; of the ·case has not been quite proper,
and, to avoid any possible
misconception,
we
would
desire to state succinctly what the correct legal position
is. Once it is admitted, as in fact has been admitted in
the present case, that the temple is a public place of
worship of the Hindus, the right of entrance into the
temple for purposes of 'darshan' or worship is a right
...
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
861
which flows from the nature of the institution itself,
and for the acquisition of such righ~, no custom or immemorial usage need be asserted or proved.
As the
Panda as well as his client are both Hindu worshippers, there can be nothing wrong in the one's accompanying the other inside the temple and subject
to what we will s.tate presently, the fact that the
pilgrim, being a stranger to the spot, takes the assistance of the Panda in the matter of 'darshan' or
worship of the deities or that the Panda gets remuneration from his client for the services he renders, does.
not in any way affect the legal rights of either of them.
In law, it makes no difference whether one performs
the act of worship himself or i,s aided or guided by
another in the performance of them. If the Pandas
daim any special right which is not enjoyed ordinarily by members of the Hindu public, they would
undoubtedly have to establish such rights on the basis
of custom, usage or otherwise.
This right of entry into a public temple is, however, not an unregulated or unrestricted right. It is
open to the trustees of a public temple to regulate the
time of public visits and fix certain hours of the day
during which alone members of the public would be
allowed access to the shrine. The public may also be
denied access to certain particularly sacred parts of
the temple, e.g., the inner sanctuary or as it is said
the 'Holy of Holies' where the deity is actually
located. Quite apart from these, it is always competent to the temple authorities to make and enforce
rules to ensure good order and decency of worship and
present overcrowding in a temple.
Good conduct or
orderly behaviour
.is always an
obligatory condition
of admission into a temple(1), and this principle has
been accepted by and recognised in the Shri Badrinath
Temple Act, section 25 of which provides for framing
of bye-laws by the temple committee inter alia for
maintenance of order inside
the temple
and regulating the entry of persons within it(2).
(') Vide Kalidas fivram v. Gor Pa1·jaram, I.L.R. 15 Born. p. 309;
~ Thackersay v. Harbhum, I.L.R. 8 Born. p. 432.
(2) Vide Section 25 (1) (rn).
1952
N ar H ari Sastri
and Others
v.
Shri Badrinath
Temple
Committee.
Mukheriea f.
1952
N ar H ari Sastri
and Others
v.
Shri Badrinath
Temple
Committee.
Muk,_herjea /.
862
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19521
The true position, ·therefore, is that the plaintiffs'
right of entering the temple along with their Yajmans.
is not a precarious or a permissive right depending
for its existence upon the arbitrary discretion of the
temple authorities; it is a legal right in the true
sense of the expression but it can be exercised subject
to the restrictions which the temple committee may
impose in good faith for maintenance of order and
decorum within the temple and for" ensuring proper
performance of customary worship.
In our opinion,
the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration in this form.
We now come to the other point which is the real
bone of contention between the parties to this appeal,.
and the question for consideration is whether the plaint-·
iffs are entitled to a declaration that they have a
right to take,
within
the
precincts of the temple,
whatever is put into their hands as gifts by their
clients at the time of workship. The trial court,.
as pointed out above, gave the plaintiffs a qualified
declaration
on
this
point,
though
the High
Court rejected
this claim
altogether. Mr.
Iyengar
has
vehemently
assailed
the
propriety
of
the
grounds upon
which
the
decisioi;i
of
the High
Court rests, whereas Mr. Dar has contended inter·
alia that the claim of
the plaintiffs
under this
head is wholly untenable in view of the provision of
bye-law (8) of the Puja Bye-laws framed by the temple committee.
·
It may be stated at the outset that as the gift, if
any, which a pilgrim might choose to make within the
temple precincts is entirely a voluntary act on his part
and as he could not be compelled to make a gift either
in favour of the Pandas or anybody else, there could,
strictly speaking, be no legal right in the plaintiffs t0<
receive any gift from his client which can be declared
by a court of law.
The plaintiffs do accept the position that the pilgrims are not bound to give anything
to the Pandas by way of Daks hiina or sacrificial fee at
the conclusion of the ceremonies in the temple ; but
what they say is this that if the pilgrims choose tO<
make any gift to them, the temple committee could:
-
---/
-·
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
863
not, in law, prevent the latter from accepting the same
and treat such gifts as part of the temple property. It
is argued that bye-law (8) of the Puja Bye-laws is
illegal and ultra vires and cannot take away the legal
right of the donee to the gifted property under the
ordinary law which has not been and cannot be affected in any way by the provisioμs of the Sri Badrinath
Temple Act.
A number of respectable witnesses examined on
behalf of the plaintiffs do say that when they went on
pilgrimage to
Badrinath they made gifts to their
Pandas inside the temple at the close of the ceremony
of
darshan
and worship. But the evidence taken,
even at its face value, does not establish that the practice of making gifts to Pandas within the temple is a
general one or that the pilgrims regard it as an indi&-
pensable part of the ceremony of worship; many .of
the witnesses plainily admit that they do not remember to have made any gifts at a11 within the temple
precincts and others say that they paid dakshina or
sacrifieial fees to all the Brahmans who were found
inside the temple at that time and not exclusively to
their Pandas. It is also stated that suphal or final
blessing is obtained from the Pandas by the pilgrims .
after making presents to them at the place called
Tapta Kundu where the hot
spring
Lies
which
is
outside the
temple.
Mr. Iyengar has
drawn
our
attention to
certain texts from
the
Kedar
Kanda
of
Skanda
Purana
which
describe
the
glory of the deity Badrinath, to show that it is a
religious
duty enjoined by the Hindu scriptures that a
worshipper
who
goes to Badrikasram should make
gifts to Brahmans after the diarshan of the idol is
obtained and offerings are made to it. An English
rendering of the passages relied upon by the learned
counsel would read thus:-
"After having bathed in the Ganges, in the Narada
Hrada (Kund) and others (Hradas), one (worshipper)
shall bathe in the Vahni Tirth
(Tapta Kunda)
after
performing the obligatory duties and with his mind
1952
Nar Hari Sastriand Others
v.
Shri Badrinatk
Temple
Committee.
Muk_herjea I~
1952
Nar Hari Sastri
and Others
v.
.Shri Badrinath
Temple
Committee.
Mukherjea /.
864
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952)
kept under control, he shall go into the temple of
Badrinath with his
mind concentrated
on Shri Hari.
He shall make ofl'erings to the . best of his capacity
and with utmost devotion.
Then he shall look at the
All Pervading
N arayana from crown to foot, and
HERE make gifts tp Brahmans to the best of his
capacity.
Thereafter, he shall do
PRADAKSHINA
(go-round)
with the utni.ost devotion.
Then he shall
come back to the Tirthas (Vahni Tirtha etc.) and
make gifts according to his ,means"(').
It cannot and
is not disputed that
according to
orthodox Hindu ideas, gift to Brahmans is considered
as a meritorious act and there are texts, to some of
which Mr. Iyengar · drew our attention,
which extol
the merits of such gifts when made at a sacred place
or within a temple or on the banks of a holy river. It
may be as
Mr. Iyengar
suggests
that the
idea of
making gifts within the temple had its origin in the
religious texts to which the learned counsel drew our
attention.
But, the
point that requires
consideration
in the present case is a difl'erent and much narrower
one. The question is ·whether under the powers of
making bye-laws
which are conferred by the Sri
Badrinath Temple Act upon ·the managing committee,
the latter could niake a rule as they have done, by
which all persons other than those whose rights are
specifically
recognised are disabled
from receiving
gifts. within the precincts of the temple.
It is perfectly 'true that under the general law,
nobody can be prevented froin accepting a gift which
another person
may be inclined to make in his
favour,
and
it
is
immaterial in
such cases
at
what i:Jlace
the gift
is
actually made.
One
has
to enquire, therefore,
on what grounds the
committee
can
interdict
the
taking' of
any
gifts
within the temple precincts. The High Court seems
to be of opinion-and this view is sought to be supported on behalf
of the respondents
before us-that
the Sri Badrinath Temple ·Act itself has in express
(!) Skanda Purana, Kedar Khand, Badri Mahatma, Chapter VI,
Verses 46-49.
-
-
•
_,
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
865
1952
terms abrogated the rights of the donee in regard to a
gift made to him within the temple and as such gifts
come within the definition of "endowment" as given in Na;n1Ja;j1l:::"
the Act the temple committee gets a controlling hand
over them and can make any regulations in relation
thereto. Reliance lis placed in this
connection
upon
section 3 (b) of the Sri Badrinath Temple Act which
lays down that the expression "endowment" in relation
v.
Shri Badrinath
Temple
Committee.
Mukheriea /.
to the Act "means all property moveable or immoveable belonging to or given or endowed for the maintenance or improvement of, or additions to, or worship in the temple, or for the performance of any
service or charity connected therewith
and
includes
the idols installed therein, the premises of the said
temple and gifts of property made to anyone within
the
precincts
of the temple."
The definition is undoubtedly couched in very wide language but it is to
be noted that under section 4 of the Act which deals
with the vesting of property, a gift does not vest in
the temple at all unless it is made for the benefit of
the temple or for the convenience, comfort or benefit
of the pilgrims.
It is conceded by Mr. Dar that a gift intended for
the personal benefit of the Pandas cannot vest in
the temple and this
is
a
quite
in
accordance
with the existing principles of Hindu law.
He contends, however, that such gifts could not vest in the
donee,
as
well, in accordance with the definition of
"endowment" given in section 3 (b) of the Sri Badrinath Temple Act.
In other words, according to the
interpretation which he would like to plit upon section 3 (b) of the Act, such gifts should be regarded as
totally void after the passing of the Act and consequently title to the thing given would still remain
in the donor even after the gift is made. This does
not seem to us to be a sound view to take. If a legislation wants to take away
the
propnetary right
which a person acquires under the ordinary law,
it must express its intention in clear and unambiguous terms. We are unable to spell a)ly such intention
out of the language used in section 3(b) of the Sri
1952
Nar Hari Sastri
and Others
v.
Shri Badrinath
Temple
Committee.
Mukherjea /.
866
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
Badrinath Temple Act. It may be that the wording of
this sub-section is defective and that there is an apparent conflict between the provision of this sub-section
and that of section 4 of the Act. It is an arguable
point whether the expression "gifts of property made
to any one"
should not be construed to mean gifts
made to any one for the benefit of the temple or for
other purposes as are specified in section 4. But it is
not necessary for our purpose to express any opinion
on that point in the present case. All that we desire
to say is tl.!at there is nothing in the Sri Badrinath
Temple Act which lays down that a gift made to any
person inside the temple and intended for the benefit
of that person shall not belong to him.
But, even if the gifts made within the temple and
'intended for the benefit of the donee personally cannot
vest in the temple under section
4 of the Sri Badrinath Temple Act, the question still remains whether
the committee in exercise of their
powers to make
bye-laws, can frame a rule that no such gifts
should
be allowed to be made within the temple and whatever
gifts the pilgrims might choose to make in favour of
any person which is unconnected w'ith offerings to the
deity must be made outside the temple precincts.
Section 25 of the Act empowers the committee to
make bye-laws not inconsistent with the
Act or the
rules
made
thereunder or any
other law for a
variety of purposes which are enumerated
in the
different clauses of the section; and clauses ( m) and
( n) run as follows :
(m) The maintenance of order within the
temple
or inside the temple and regulating the entry of
persons therein; and
(n) The performance of duties prescribed in section 23.
Section 23 lays down the duties of. the committee
and sub-section (9) prescribes it to be duty of the
committee to do all such things as may be incidental
and conducive to the efficient management of the
.._,
temple and endowments and the convenience of the
•
j
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
867
pilgrims. In our opinion, bye-law
(8) of the Puja
Bye-laws
referred
to
above,
which forbids
the
acceptance of the gifts by any person
within
the
temple,
unless
he comes
within
the category
of
person
specifically
authorised
by
the
committee
to receive the same, is a perfectly legitimate bye-law
which it was quite competent
for the committee
to enact under the terms of clauses (m) and (n) of
section 25 referred to above.
It will be remembered
that the religious duty to make gifts within the
temple or at sacred· places which is enjoined on Hindu
worshippers by the texts relied upon by Mr. Iyengar has
no particular reference to the Pandas who accompany
the worshipper.