- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Devaraja Shenoy And Others v. The State Of Madras, By Secretary, Legal Department And Another.
Factual and Procedural Background
This application concerns the Sr. Venkataramana Temple, Mulki, South Kanara District, filed by five trustees seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order directing the State of Madras (first respondent) to refrain from enforcing provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, against the petitioners and the temple’s endowments. The application was filed following the enactment of the new Act. The temple’s administration is governed by a scheme framed by the Sub Court, South Kanara, in 1915 (O.S No. 26 of 1915), known as the Mulki temple scheme. This scheme vests general control and management of the temple, both secular and religious, in members of the Gowd Saraswath Brahmin community residing in specific villages, excluding the temple priests (Vaideekis).
The actual administration is conducted by a Council of trustees called Moketessors through a Parpathyagar (Manager). Five trustees are elected by registered community members, while two trustees are hereditary. The scheme details trustee responsibilities, election qualifications, meeting procedures, and the Parpathyagar’s duties and salary. This scheme has been in effect since its judicial settlement.
After the new Act came into force on 30th September 1951, the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments included the temple in a list under Section 38 of the Act and sought to enforce the Act’s provisions despite trustees’ protests. The petitioners challenged the Act as ultra vires the State Legislature regarding their temple, asserting protection under Article 26 of the Constitution for their religious denomination and contesting the imposition of a contribution under Section 76 of the Act as a prohibited tax under Article 27. A pending petition exists in the District Court for amending the temple’s scheme.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, can be enforced against the Sr. Venkataramana Temple and its trustees, given the existing judicially settled temple scheme.
- Whether the Gowd Saraswath Brahmin community, as a religious denomination, is entitled to protection under Article 26 of the Constitution against State interference in the administration of their temple.
- Whether the imposition of a contribution under Section 76 of the Act constitutes an illegal tax prohibited by Article 27 of the Constitution.
- Whether the inclusion of the temple in the list under Section 38 of the Act and the consequent application of the Act’s provisions violate the autonomy and religious freedom of the petitioners.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The Gowd Saraswath Brahmin community is a religious denomination entitled to constitutional protection under Article 26.
- The new Act’s provisions interfere with the community’s exclusive right to administer the temple as established by the judicially settled scheme.
- The Act vests powers in the Commissioner to appoint, remove, and control trustees, thereby destroying the community’s autonomy over temple management.
- The Act’s provisions reduce trustees to mere servants under government control, violating religious freedom guaranteed by Article 26.
- The levy of contribution under Section 76 is a prohibited tax under Article 27 and thus illegal.
Respondent's Arguments
- The inclusion of the temple in the list under Section 38 was harmless and did not seriously infringe the rights of the religious denomination.
- The petitioners are not personally aggrieved since no immediate enforcement of the Act’s provisions had occurred.
- Relied on precedents and authoritative opinions emphasizing that only persons whose rights are injuriously affected can raise constitutional questions.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India | Only persons whose rights are injuriously affected may raise constitutional questions. | The court distinguished the present case from Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury, holding that the petitioners are personally aggrieved due to the Commissioner’s notice applying the Act to the temple. |
| Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Co. v. William G. Conley | Referenced to support principles on constitutionality and rights of affected parties. | Used to buttress the argument that petitioners have standing as they are directly affected by the Act’s enforcement. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court recognized the Gowd Saraswath Brahmin community as a religious denomination entitled to protection under Article 26. It analyzed the effect of the new Act, particularly its classification of the temple under Section 38, which subjected the temple to the Act’s full provisions, including control by the Commissioner. The court observed that the Act’s provisions substantially interfere with the autonomy of the religious denomination by transferring powers of appointment, removal, and management of trustees from the community to the Commissioner, effectively reducing trustees to subordinates of the government.
The court emphasized that the Act vests executive authorities with judicial functions, undermining constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. While acknowledging that submission of accounts for information might be acceptable, it rejected the imposition of dictation by an external authority over the community’s management. The court also reaffirmed its earlier finding in a related case (C.M.P No. 2591 of 1951) that the levy of contributions under Section 76 is unconstitutional under Article 27.
Respondent’s contention that the petitioners were not aggrieved was rejected, as the Commissioner’s notice constituted a concrete step towards enforcement, thereby granting the petitioners standing. The court found analogy between this temple and another temple previously adjudicated upon, applying the same reasoning to hold the impugned provisions ultra vires in respect of the petitioners’ temple.
Holding and Implications
The court granted the rule nisi and made it absolute, directing the State not to enforce any provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, that interfere with the autonomy of the petitioners’ institution.
The direct effect of this decision is that the trustees of the Sr. Venkataramana Temple retain their exclusive right to administer the temple without interference from the State under the challenged Act provisions. The ruling affirms the constitutional protection of religious denominations under Article 26 and declares certain provisions of the Act ultra vires to the extent they infringe on this autonomy. No new precedent beyond the immediate parties was established, but the judgment reinforces existing constitutional principles regarding religious freedom and State interference.
The petitioner was also awarded costs and an advocate’s fee of Rs. 250. The court certified this case as fit for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 132 of the Constitution.
This application relates to Sr. Venkataramana Temple, Mulki, South Kanara District and was filed by five of the trustees for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the first respondent, the State of Madras, to forbear from enforcing any of the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, against the petitioners, the Shri Venkataramana Temple and its endowments. The application was filed after the new Act came into force. The administration of this temple is governed by a scheme framed by the Sub Court, South Kanara, in O.S No. 26 of 1915 known as the Moolki temple scheme. There are certain peculiar features regarding this temple which can be gathered from the scheme framed in that suit which for convenient reference is added as an appendix to this judgment as the contentions raised turned mostly upon a correct appreciation of the principles underlying the scheme. Under the scheme the general control and the management of the affairs of the temple both secular and religious are vested in the members of the Gowd Saraswath Brahmin community, residing in Moolkypeta i.e the villages of Bappanad, Karnad and Manampadi. The Vaideekis who are the temple priests are excluded from this. The actual management of the affairs of the temple, however, has to be conducted by a Council of trustees called Moketessors through a Parpathyagar (Manager). Five of the trustees are elected by an electorate consisting of every member of the community whose name is registered in a book called the register of electors which it is the duty of the trustees to maintain. The qualifications of the electors are enumerated in the scheme as well as the mode of conducting the elections. The Council of Moketessors consists of seven members of whom two shall be senior members for the time being of the families of U. Srinivasa Shanbhogue and T. Vasudeva Shanbhogue, and the rest shall be elected by the general body of electors. Two out of the seven therefore may be treated as hereditary trustees. The responsibility for the due and proper administration of the trust is laid on the Council of Mokhesseders. Provision is made to elect out of the Mokhessedors two treasurers, and there are other provisions requiring them to meet periodically and providing for the manner and method of conducting the business at such meetings. It is unnecessary to refer to these details. The Parpathyagar is to be appointed by the Mokhessedors on a salary of not less than Rs. 75 a month. The rights and duties of the Parpathyagar have been specified in the scheme. It contains as many as 67 clauses. This scheme was in vogue ever since it was settled by Court.
After the new Act came into force on 30th September 1951 the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments by his memorandum of the 30th September 1951 issued an order stating that the temple of Sri Venkataramana was included in the list published by the Commissioner under S. 38 of the Act. Attempts were being made to enforce the order under the new Act notwithstanding the protests of the trustees. It was therefore apprehended by the petitioners that all the provisions of the new Act will be enforced by the Commissioner. The Act was questioned on the ground that it was ultra vires the Stale Legislature in so far as its provisions relate to the petitioners' temple and its endowments, as the Gowd Saraswath community is a religious denomination which is entitled to protection under Art. 26 of the Constitution. It is also further claimed that the Board had no right to impose a contribution under S. 76 of the Act, which is a tax the levy of which is prohibited by Art. 27. The notification proceedings and the other provisions relating to the control and management of the religious institutions were also attacked. It appears, and it is not disputed, that an original petition is now pending in the District Court, South Kanara, O.P No. 46 of 1950 for amending the provisions of the scheme.
The Gowd Saraswath Brahmin community is undoubtedly a religious denomination or at any rate a section of a religious denomination. Therefore, the protection under Art. 26 has been rightly claimed on behalf of the petitioners. The effect of classifying the temple and including it in the list maintained under S. 38 is to decide that it is an institution whose income is not less than Rs. 20000 and that the jurisdiction of the Area Committee does not extend to it. It implies therefore that all the provisions of the Act are applicable, the provisions relating to the settlement of the scheme, the notification proceedings and the control and supervision, the duty to obey all lawful directions and so on which have been more fully set out in our judgment in C.M.P No. 2591 of 1951. As rightly contended by Mr. Nambiar, learned Advocate for the petitioners, the provisions of the Act in substance and in effect destroy the community's right of administration. The right to appoint, dismiss, suspend and remove trustees is vested in the Commissioner and also the appointment of non-hereditary trustees—vide Ss. 18 and 39(2). This power to appoint trustees under Ss. 39 and 41 of the Act can be exercised by the authorities concerned notwithstanding that a scheme has been already settled which scheme is deemed under the new Act to have been settled under that Act in respect of such institution. This institution has among the Council of trustees, non-hereditary as well as hereditary trustees. Power is vested under the scheme in the religious denomination. That power is now taken away. The power to remove and dismiss trustees which is vested under the scheme in the general body is vested by the new Act in the case of the present temple in the Commissioner. The trustees are under an obligation to obey and carry out all lawful directions issued as provided by S. 54 and S. 45(b) provides that disobedience of lawful orders will entail suspension, removal or dismissal of a trustee. The power to fix the fees for archakas and determine their apportionment as well as fixing the standard of scales of expenditure or the dittam is also taken away from the trustees and vested in the Commissioner. The budget has to be passed. The surplus funds can be diverted to objects other than those of the temple. In other words, the effect of the Act is to reduce the trustees to the position of servants, the Government and the Commissioner being the masters, as the relationship is nothing more and nothing less. In case of disputes with reference to various matters, the determination by the Government or its servants, the decision of the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner is final. The Act vests in executive with judicial functions and the rights guaranteed under the Constitution have been made illusory and nugatory by the provisions of the Act. The trustees connote have any legitimate objection if the Act should have provided for submitting the accounts or budgets for information; but what they contend is that they should not be dictated with reference to these matters by an extraneous authority so as to seriously interfere with and destroy the religious freedom that has been guaranteed by Art. 26. So long as one wants to know what one is doing there may not be a serious objection; but when the other party tries to dictate as to what one should do then comes the rub. In the light of the various considerations averted to by us in the judgment in C.M.P No. 2591 of 1951, we have ho hesitation in holding that the provisions of the Act in so far as they interfere with the autonomy of the religious denomination which own and has the sole and exclusive control of the temple should not be allowed to be enforced including the provision relating to notification procedure which vests an arbitrary power in the Commissioner and the Government to wrest from the hands of the trustees the power to administer the temple. We have held in C.M.P No. 2591 of 195] that the levy of contribution under S. 76 offends Art 27 and therefore is illegal.
Apart from contending on the lines in which arguments were advanced in the other cases regarding Art. 26 which we have already dealt with, on behalf of the respondent one other fundamental objection has been raised and that is that nothing serious has been done by way of infringing the rights of the religious denomination as all that was done was the harmless and innocuous inclusion of the temple in the list maintained under S. 38. The learned Government Pleader relied on the observations of Fazl Ali J. in Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India(1), and also a passage from Willis on Constitutional Law and Cooley's Constitutional Limitations. He also relied on the decision in Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Co. v. William G. Conley(2). The passage in Willis at page 91 is as follows:
“Who can raise constitutional questions? Who are entitled to raise questions of constitutionality? Any one whose rights are injuriously affected and no one else. It is not enough that the Statute is unconstitutional, as to other persons or classes. The person attacking the statute must come within the class. A party benefited rather than injured by a statute may not question its constitutionality. If no attempt is made to enforce a provision, one cannot attack it.”
To similar effect is the opinion of Cooley in his Constitutional Limitations, Vol. I, at pages 335 to 341 where the matter is fully discussed. Unlike the case in Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India the petitioners are personally aggrieved as trustees of the institution as the Endowments Board issued a notice that the temple was included under S. 38, which means that they have taken a definite decision to apply the provisions of the Act to the temple owned by the petitioners. The Commissioner did not stop with pious intentions but has taken a step and perhaps a serious step, in deciding to apply the provisions of the Act to the institution. It is rather difficult therefore to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the petition should be thrown out in limine on the ground that the petitioners are not persons aggrieved and that there is at present no danger of the provisions of the Act being applied to the temple. We are therefore unable to agree with that contention and the petitioners, in our opinion, are entitled to maintain the petition. The petitioners are entitled to a rule absolute directing the Board not to enforce any of the provisions of the Act which interfere with the autonomy of the petitioners' institution.
In W.P Nos. 379 and 380 of 1951, we have held that the sections of the impugned new Act, enumerated in detail in C.M.P No. 2591 of 1951, were ultra vires the State Legislature. The Sri Venkataramana Temple, Mulki, in South Kanara, with which we are concerned in this petition, is analogous to the Sri Sabhanayakar Temple at Chidambaram, with which we had to deal in W.P Nos. 379 and 380 of 1951. In the case of Sri Venkataramana Temple, Mulki, also, there is a judicial decision, that the temple and its properties belong to the entire denomination of the community, resident in Mulki, comprising ail the three villages, excluding, of course, the Vaidikis, i.e, the priests of the temple. Therefore what applies to the Chidambaram temple owned by the denomination of Dikshitars should also apply to this temple, Sri Venkataramana Temple, Mulki, owned by the religious denomination consisting of Gowd Saraswath Brahmins resident in Mulkipetta. It is therefore unnecessary to enumerate over again the provisions of the impugned Act which are ultra vires the Legislature in so far as that Act applies to Sri Venkataramana Temple, Mulki, the trustees thereof and the religious denomination that owns it. Those Sections have already been enumerated in C.M.P No. 2591 of 1951.
The rule nisi must be made absolute.
The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250. We certify under Art. 132 of the Constitution that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court.
V.C.S
Alert