Case: Digyadarsan Rajendra Ramdassji Varu Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh &amp; Anr

2. The petitioner claims to be the Mathadhipathi of Shri Swami Hathiramji Math Tripathi-Thirumalla in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that this institution was founded several centuries ago and is one of the renowned Maths in India. Hundreds of Sadhus visit the Math throughout the year and it is the duty of the Mahant as its religious head to provide the visiting Sadhus with food and shelter and to perform all religious duties with regard to the celebration of Hindu festivals, propagation of the cult of Shri Swami Hathiramji and performance of other religious functions. It is alleged that Mahant Chettandoss, the previous incumbent died on March 18, 1962. On March 24, 1962 the Commissioner took charge of the Math and its properties under Section 53 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, (Act No. 19 of 1951), hereinafter referred to as the "Repealed Act". The petitioner filed a suit on March 26, 1962 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor for a declaration that he was the rightful successor. The Commissioner was impleaded as a party to the suit. He also filed a revisional application under Section 92 of the Repealed Act to the State Government. The Government disposed of the revisional application on June 5, 1962. It appointed the petitioner as the interim Mahant subject to certain conditions which need not be mentioned. Before this order was made the petitioner withdrew the suit filed by him in April 1962. Devendradoss, who was another claimant but who was a minor, filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the above order of the Government but the same was rejected by the Division Bench. Devendradoss then filed certain suits for a declaration of his title. On August 22, 1964, the Commissioner made an order directing the petitioner to show cause why the previous order appointing him as an interim Mahant be not recalled. According to the petitioner this was done because the State Government started claiming, contrary to the rule and custom which prevailed in the Math, that the amounts received on account of Padakanukas (personal offerings) should be paid to the Government and not taken by the Mahant. This order was challenged by the petitioner by means of a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court issued a stay order which was later on clarified to mean that the State Government was free to take such further action under the Act as it considered necessary. On September 9, 1965 the State Government framed charges against the petitioner and directed him to furnish his explanation. The petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect. It was further directed that the Assistant Commissioner, Tirupathi should take charge of the Math and its affairs. Meanwhile another claimant Bhagwantdoss filed a suit on September 29, 1965, claiming title to the gaddi in his own right. The writ petition which had been filed by the petitioner was allowed by the High Court on November 8, 1966. The matter ultimately came up in appeal to this Court, the judgment being reported in Secretary, Home (Endowments), Andhra Pradesh v. Digyadarsam Rajindra Ram Dasjee, 1967-3 SCR 891   = (AIR 1968 SC 105  ). The judgment of the High Court was affirmed. The High Court had held that the petitioner had succeeded to the office of the Mahant on the death of Chetandoss on March 18, 1962 in his own right. This Court concurred in that view and observed that the mere circumstance that the Government had also passed an order appointing him as the interim Mahant could not take away his right to function as a trustee on the basis of his original right. It followed that the Government had no jurisdiction to pass an order placing him under suspension as that virtually amounted to a removal of the trustee of the Math which could only be done in the manner provided by Section 52 of the Repealed Act.3. The Act received the assent of the President on December 6, 1966 and was enforced with effect from January 27, 1967. On May 30, 1967 the petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court for declaring the present impugned provisions of the Act as ultra vires. That petition was dismissed in limine as premature. An appeal to the Letters Patent Bench failed. On coming to know that certain orders were going to be passed against the petitioner whereby charges on various matters were to be preferred and an inquiry made and that the suspension of the petitioner from Mahaniship was going to be ordered, the present petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution in October

Reasoning:
10. The attack on the ground of violation of Article 25 (1) can be disposed of quite briefly. It has nowhere been established that the petitioner has been prohibited or debarred from professing, practising and propagating his religion.A good deal of material has been placed on the record to show that the entire math is being guarded by police constables but that does not mean that the petitioner cannot be allowed to enter the math premises and exercise the fundamental right conferred by Article 25 (1) of the Constitution. As regards the contravention of Clauses (b) and (d) of Article 26, there is nothing in Sections 46 and 47 which empowers the Commissioner to interfere with the autonomy of the religious denomination in the matter of deciding as to what rights and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion the denomination professes or practises or has it has been shown that any such order has been made by the Commissioner or that the Assistant Commissioner who has been put in charge of the day-to-day affairs is interfering in such matters. Section 47 of the Act deals only with a situation where there is a temporary vacancy in the office of the mathadhipathi by reason of any dispute in regard to the right of succession to the office or the other reasons stated therein as also because the mathadhipathi has been suspended pending an inquiry under Section 46. Its provisions do not take away the right of administration from the hands of a religious denomination altogether and vest it for all times in a person or authority who is not entitled to exercise that right under the customary rule and custom prevailing in the math.In the first Shirur Math case, 1954 SCR 1005   = (AIR 1954 SC 282  ) Section 56 of the repealed Act before its amendment by Act 12 of 1954 was struck down as power had been given to the Commissioner to require the trustee to appoint a manager for the administration of the secular affairs of the institution and the Commissioner himself could also make the appointment. It was pointed out that this power could be exercised at the mere option of the Commissioner without any justifying necessity whatsoever and no pre-requisites like mismanagement of property or maladministration of trust funds were necessary to enable the trustee to exercise such drastic power. The effect of the section really was that the Commissioner was at liberty, at any moment, to deprive the Mahant of his right to administer the trust property even if there was no negligence or maladministration on his part. Such a restriction was held to be opposed to the provisions of Article 26 (d) of the Constitution. Section 47 of the Act is not in pari materia with Section 56 of the repealed Act. On the contrary Section 47 indicates quite clearly the conditions and situations in which the Commissioner can appoint someone to carry on the administration of the math and its endowments. In the present case, the Assistant Commissioner has been appointed as a day-to-day administrator because of the inquiry which is pending against the petitioner and in which serious charges of misappropriation and defalcation of trust funds and leading an immoral life are being investigated. It cannot be said that Section 47 would be hit by Article 26 (d) of the Constitution as the powers under it will be exercised, inter alia, when mismanagement of property or maladministration of trust funds aremay be made clear that the Assistant Commissioner who is in charge of the day-to-day administration temporarily of the math and its endowments shall be fully entitled to take necessary steps for recovery of all debts and claims which could have been recovered by the Mahant from various debtors etc.On the question whether Ss. 46 and 47 of the Act contravene Articles 25 and 26, a good deal of reliance has been placed on the observations in the first Shirur Math case, 1954 SCR 1005   = (AIR 1954 SC 282  ). Mukherjea, J. (as he then was) delivering the judgment of the court had examined the scope of the language of Article 25 and 26.It was indicated by him that freedom of religion in our Constitution is not confined to religious beliefs only;it extends to religious practice as well subject to the restrictions which the Constitution itself has laid down. Under Article 26 (b), therefore, a religious denomination or organisation enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rights and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion and no outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with its decision in such matters. Moreover under Article 26 (d) it is the fundamental right of a religious denomination or its representative to administer its property in accordance with law; and the law, therefore, must leave the right of administration to the religious denomination, itself subject to such restrictions and regulations as it might choose to impose. It was further laid down that a law which takes away the right of administration from the hands of a religious denomination altogether and vests it in any other authority amount to a violation of the right guaranteed under Clause (d) of Article 26.Now under Section 47 of the Act where a mathadhipathi is under suspension the Commissioner can make such arrangement as he thinks fit for the administration of the math until another mathadhipathi succeeds to the office and in making such arrangement he has to have due regard to the claims of the disciples of the math. Itis maintained on behalf of the petitioner that the appointment of Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tirupathi as theadministrator of the math and its endowment has aeffect. The first is that the complete autonomy which a religious denomination like the math in question enjoys in the matter of observance of rights and ceremonies essential to the tenets of the religion has been interfered with. The second is that the right of administration has been altogether taken away from the hands of the religious denomination by vesting it in the AssistantCommissioner. This clearly contravenes the provisions of Clauses (b) and (d) of Article 26 within the rule laid down in the first Shirur Math case, 1954 SCR 1005   = (AIR 1954 SC 282  ). By doing so in exercise of the powers under Section 47 the Commissioner has also debarred the petitioner from practising and propagating religion freely which he is entitled to do under Article 25 (1).