Author: Suhani Bagadia

Edited By: Sankalp Vashistha

ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

In the present case, the respondent who was the Mathadhipati of the Shirur Mutt filed a petition in the High Court of Madras challenging the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 and the High Court issued an order in favour of the Mathadhipati or the Swami and pronounced the act to be ultra vires Arts- 19(1)(f),25,26 and 27 of the Constitution. Thereafter, the appellant- The Commissioner, of Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras approached the Supreme Court to challenge the decision of the High Court. The SC found the High Court judgement to be valid and held that the act encroached upon the fundamental rights of the religious denominations guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution as the act tried to interfere with the internal affairs of the religious institutions which was unwarranted and unjustified. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Keywords: a. Article 26      b. religious denomination        c. Supreme Court

d. internal affairs    e. fundamental rights

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This present case is a landmark judgement that helped define the scope of the fundamental rights of the religious denomination in India under Article 26 of the constitution.  It defined the limits of the state’s power to make regulations or laws to oversee the internal affairs and administration which in turn helped strengthen the autonomy of the religious denominations. This case primarily revolves around Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution which guarantee freedom of religion to every citizen of India.

Article 25 states that – “Every person is free to propagate, practice and profess any religion of their choice.” This means that every person is not only free to practice their religion but they are also free to disseminate the beliefs or practices of their religion.

Article 26 provides for the right of citizens to establish and manage the affairs of any religious or charitable institution. It means that every religious institution is free to conduct its affairs without any interference by the govt unless it affects the public order, morality and health.

This case involves a conflict between the Mathadhipati of the Shirur Mutt, a Hindu religious institution located in Madras and the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras over the enactment of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1951 which contained provisions that tried to limit the control of the religious institution over its internal affairs and administration. The Act provided for the appointment of a Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and an Area Committee to oversee the affairs of all religious institutions across the state. Administration of these institutions was to be supervised by the Commissioner including the management of funds which resulted in the reduced role of the Mathadhipati or the head and violated the institution’s right to manage its own affairs. Many provisions of the said act were found invalid or ultra vires to Articles – 19(1)(f) 25,26 and 27 of the Constitution.

FACTS OF THE CASE

• Procedural Background of the Case
  1. The Mathadhipati or the Swami (respondent) of the Shirur Mutt filed a petition in the High Court of Madras requesting to issue a writ of prohibition in his favour to prohibit the appellant – the Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments from proceeding further in settlement of a scheme in connection with the Mutt. The High Court issued a writ of prohibition in the favour of the respondent as well as scrutinised the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1951 and found certain provisions of the act to be ultra vires Articles- 19(1)(f), 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution. As a consequence, an appeal was filed by the appellant in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Madras High Court.
• Factual Background of the Case
  1926. The factual matrix of the case is- The Mutt, known as Shirur Mutt, of which the petitioner is the superior or Mathadhipati, is one of the eight Mutts situated at Udipi in the district of South Kanara and they are reputed to have been founded by Shri Madhwacharya, the well-known exponent of dualistic theism in the Hindu Religion. Each Mutt is presided over by a swami. The petitioner became a Mathadhipati in the year 1919 when he was still a minor, and he assumed management in 1926. At that time the Mutt was heavily in debt. Owing to scarcity and the high prices of commodities at that time, the Swami had to borrow money to meet the expenditure and the debts mounted up to nearly a lakh rupees. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, functioning under the Earlier Act of 1927, intervened at this stage and under section 61-A of the Act called upon the Swami to appoint a competent manager to manage the affairs of the institution. The petitioner claims that the action of the board was instigated by Lakshminarayana Rao, a lawyer in Udupi.

It appears that in pursuance of the direction of the Board, one Sripath Achar was appointed an agent on the 24th of December, 1948. This agent, as claimed by the petitioner did not follow the directions of the Mahant and deliberately flouted his authority. In this state of affairs the Swami, on the 26th of September, 1950, served a notice upon the agent terminating his agency. But On the 4th of October, 1950, the petitioner filed a suit against the agent because the agent did not pay heed to this notice and continued to work there. Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition in the Sub-Court of South Kanara for recovery of the account books and other articles belonging to the Math, and also to restrict the agent from interfering in the matters of the Mutt. The said Sripath Achar anticipating this suit filed an application to the Board on the 3rd of October, 1950, complaining against the cancellation of the Power of Attorney and his management of the Math. The Board on the 4th October, 1950, issued a notice to the Swami proposing to inquire into the matter. To this Swami sent a reply on 21st October, 1950, stating that the subject matter of the very enquiry was before the court in the original suit filed by him and therefore, the enquiry should be put off.

The Board dropped that enquiry, but initiated proceedings suo motu under section 62 of the Earlier Act and issued a notice upon the Swami on the 6th of November, 1950, stating that it had reason to believe that the endowments of the said Math were being mismanaged and that a scheme should be framed for the administration of its affairs. The notice was served to the Swami and the 8th of December, 1950, was fixed as the date of enquiry. The matter was repeatedly adjourned till 13 January 1951 because the lawyer appearing from Swami’s side was unwell. On the 24th of January, 1951, the Swami received a notice from the Board stating that the Board was satisfied that a scheme was necessary for the proper administration of the Mutt.

On the 12th of February, 1951, the petitioner filed the petition, out of which this appeal arises, in the High Court of Madras praying for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Board from settling a scheme for the administration of the Math. It was alleged that the Board acted with bias against the petitioner and the action taken by it with regard to the settling of a scheme was not a bona fide act at all.

On the merits, it was held that the Board did a perverse exercise of its jurisdiction and that it should not be allowed to proceed in regard to the settlement of the scheme. The learned Judges found a number of sections of the New Act to be ultra vires the Constitution by reason of their being in conflict with the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under articles 19(1) (f), 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED (minimum 2 legal issues)

• Whether the respondent as Mathadhipati has a right to property in the legal sense in the religious institution and its endowments, which would enable him to claim protection under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution?
• Whether the Mutt is a religious denomination under the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution?
• Whether the Act took away the fundamental right of the religious denomination to manage its affairs guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution?

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that article 19(1)(f) deals only with the natural or inherent rights of a citizen to acquire, hold and dispose of property in the abstract without reference to rights to any particular property, it can be of no real assistance to the respondent in the present case and article 3l of the Constitution, which deals with deprivation of property, has no application here.
• The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant also questioned the claim of the respondent that the Mutt in question is a religious denomination and said that the Mutt was not entitled to the protections available under Article 26.
• The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the act only intended to manage the affairs of administration and not of religion and this is why the act did not violate any fundamental right of the institution to manage its affairs.
• The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant also disputed the High Court’s decision to declare some of the sections of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 invalid or ultra vires some articles of the constitution.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• The counsels for Respondent submitted that the Shirur Mutt was a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution and it was entitled to all kinds of rights available under this article.
• The counsels for Respondent submitted that the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 enacted by the Madras govt. violated the institution’s fundamental rights granted under Article 26 by interfering in its internal affairs and administration and was meant to increase the control of the govt over the religious institutions.
• The counsels for Respondent submitted that the Swami was the head of the institution and thereby the Mutt and its endowments were the property of the Swami and he had every right to administer the property in whichever ways he wanted.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Article 25: – “Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion- guarantees the freedom of conscience, the freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion to all citizens.”
• Article 26: – “Freedom to manage religious affairs – every religious denomination has the following rights, subject to morality, health and public order.

1. The right to form and maintain institutions for religious and charitable intents. b. The right to manage its own affairs in the matter of religion.
2. The right to acquire immovable and movable property.
3. The right to administer such property according to the law.”

• Article 19(1)(f)– “guaranteed the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property.”
• Article 27– “Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion- there can be no taxes, the proceeds of which are directly used for the promotion and/or maintenance of any particular religion/religious denomination.”

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

• The Supreme Court upheld the major portion of the judgement of the High Court and declared that the judgement of the High Court would remain valid. The SC held that the act brought by the Madras govt. did encroach upon the fundamental rights of the religious[i] institutions and the act empowered the state to act beyond its powers and thereby enabled it to interfere in the affairs of these institutions. It held that certain provisions of the act were discordant with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

• On the question of the Mutt being a religious denomination under Article 26, the SC referred to the definition of “religious denomination” given by the Oxford Dictionary and held that any religious sect or body having a common faith and Organisation and designated by a distinctive name is a religious denomination. Therefore, the Mutt legitimately comes within the purview of this article.
• On the question of whether the Mathadhipati holds the legal right to property under article 19(1)(f), the SC referred to multiple cases like – Ganesh v Lal Behary and Bhabatarini v. Ashalata and decided that duties and personal interest are blended together in the office of Mahantship and the personal and beneficial interest of the Mahant in the endowments attached to an institution invest the office of Mahant with the character of proprietary right, which is a legal right. It also held that the Mahantship is not heritable because it has a peculiar nature and ordinary rules of succession do not apply in such a case.
• With regards to the validity of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1951 enacted by the State Legislature, the SC made the following observations:

1. Sec 20 of the act which empowers the Commissioner to pass any orders for the proper administration of endowments and proper appropriation of funds is not in conflict with the fundamental rights of the Mahant as some sort of supervision is necessary for the due administration of endowments and proper appropriation of funds.
2. Sec 25,26,28 and 29 are also not held bad by the SC as the mere possibility of them being abused is not a ground for a section to be held invalid. The provision for keeping registers and records of the endowments does not infringe upon any kind of fundamental right of the respondent.
3. Sec 30 of the act infringes upon the fundamental rights of the petitioner as it requires the trustee of the institution to consult with the Commissioner on matters of expenditure and if the trustee must abide by the orders of the Commissioner then it constitutes an infringement upon the fundamental rights of the trustee. Sec 31 also suggests that the management of surplus funds is to be supervised by the Deputy Commissioner, which takes away the power of management of funds from the trustee.
4. Sec 55 of the act is also held to be an encroachment upon the fundamental right of the mahant as it provides that all the gifts received by the mahant should be used for the purposes of the Mutt which is unjustified as the gifts received are also a property of the Mahant and he can dispose them on his discretion.
5. Sec 76 of the act is also considered to be void as it goes beyond the powers of the State Legislature. It provides for an annual contribution by the religious institution to the govt. Such a charge is said to be a fee but the Court has held that it is a tax and the State Legislature was not authorised to make any provision for charging tax as this power is in the hands of the Parliament. The grounds upon which such a fee is considered to be a tax are – that there is an essence of compulsion that is only present in taxes, and there is no special benefit conferred upon the person paying the fees. This provision was clearly in contravention of Article 27 of the Constitution.

• The court noted that it is the fundamental right of a religious denomination under Article 26(d) to administer its properties in accordance with law and the law can impose reasonable restrictions upon the administration by the religious institutions. Any law that would take away this right of a religious institution and vests it in any other authority created by law would amount to a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under article 26(d).

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case is a useful precedent for other cases related to the autonomy of religious institutions. The judgement given by the Supreme Court helped define the boundaries of state regulations on religious institutions helped strengthen the autonomy of these institutions and enabled them to assert their fundamental rights. The scope of Article 26 was well-defined through this case as the court thoroughly examined all the possible interpretations of the provisions of the article.

In brief, the respondent’s fundamental right guaranteed under Article 26 was violated by the enactment of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1951 brought by the state govt to regulate the administration of endowments of these institutions.

In my opinion, the State govt. went beyond its power by enacting such legislation which tried to take control of the religious institutions from the trustees of those institutions. The act clearly infringed upon the fundamental rights of the respondent and deprived him of his authority to administer the endowments of the institution.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

• Ganesh v Lal Behary, 63 I.A. 448
• Bhabatarini v. Ashalata, 70, I.A.57
• Vidya Varuthi v. Balusami , 48,I.A.302
• Adelaide Company v. Commonwealth ,67, C.L.R., 116,127
• Minersville School District, Board of Education, etc. v. Gobitis , 310 U.S. 586

Important Statutes Referred

• Constitution of India – Article – 19(1)(f), 25, 26 and 27