1997 JTR(SC) 573
1997 AIR(SC) 2332 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 2219 ; 1997 4 JT 693 ; 1997 3 Scale 511 ; 1997 5 SCC 303 ; 1997 3 SCR 402 ; 1997 2 UJ 2 ; 1997 4 Supreme 19
1997(4) Supreme 19
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Anna Satram Committee & Ors. etc. -Appellants
versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable & Endowments & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1340 of 1986
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 8535/94 and 1341/89
And
Civil Appeal No. 2718 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8437/97) (CC-1840/89)
Decided on 27-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the State : K. Ram Kumar, C. Balasubramaniam, Y.S. Rao and Mrs. Asha Nair, Advocates.
For the Intervenors : Mrs. Pushpa Rajan and K.B.S. Rajan, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Hindu Sections of Arya Vysya Community who worship Goddess Matha Kanyakaparameswari are not denominational section for the purpose of Article 26(b) & 26(d) of the Constitution.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.26(d), Art.26(b)
(A) The provisions of Article 26(b) and Article 26(d) of the Constitution are engaged where the nature of a religious denomination and its entitlement to manage its own institutions in matters of religious practice and ritual is in question. The present dispute arises under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Religious Institutions Endowment Act, where the statutory framework governs the administration of temples and religious endowments and delineates the boundaries between denominational control and state-regulated administration. The interplay between constitutional protections for religious denominations and the overriding scheme of a special law defining the structure and appointment of the managing authority is at the heart of the legal conflict.
(B) A religious community or a subset within a larger religious community is not entitled to the protections of Article 26(b) and Article 26(d) unless it constitutes a distinct denominational section with its own distinct religious beliefs or practices, as determined by the Court. Where a religious institution is not recognised as a denominational section, the provisions of the state-endowed religious institutions law apply, and the management of the institution falls within the scope of that secular legislation.
Facts of the case:
The appellants, claiming to represent a specific segment of the Arya Vysya Community worshipping a particular deity, sought recognition as a denominational temple under Article 26(d) of the Constitution. The High Court acknowledged their denominational status but held that the Managing Committee would necessarily include official members under the state Endowments Act, leading to the rejection of the claim. The central issue was whether the worshippers of a specific deity within the larger Arya Vysya Community formed a denominational section.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Hindu section of the Arya Vysya Community worshipping Goddess Matha Kanyakaparameswari does not constitute a denominational section for the purposes of Articles 26(b) and 26(d) of the Constitution. Consequently, the institution is subject to the provisions of the Endowments Act and is to be administered in accordance with the principles laid down in a prior decision regarding temple management.
Issues:
Whether a specific sect within the Hindu religion constitutes a denominational section under Article 26(b) and Article 26(d) of the Constitution, and whether such a claim is defeated by the operation of a state law governing religious endowments.
Ratio Decidendi:
The worship of a specific deity within a larger religious community does not, in itself, establish a distinct denominational section if the broader community is already recognised as a religious denomination. Consequently, such a group is not entitled to the special protections of Article 26(b) and Article 26(d), and the management of the institution is governed by the secular law applicable to religious endowments.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed.
(A) The provisions of Article 26(b) and Article 26(d) of the Constitution are engaged where the nature of a religious denomination and its entitlement to manage its own institutions in matters of religious practice and ritual is in question. The present dispute arises under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Religious Institutions Endowment Act, where the statutory framework governs the administration of temples and religious endowments and delineates the boundaries between denominational control and state-regulated administration. The interplay between constitutional protections for religious denominations and the overriding scheme of a special law defining the structure and appointment of the managing authority is at the heart of the legal conflict.
(B) A religious community or a subset within a larger religious community is not entitled to the protections of Article 26(b) and Article 26(d) unless it constitutes a distinct denominational section with its own distinct religious beliefs or practices, as determined by the Court. Where a religious institution is not recognised as a denominational section, the provisions of the state-endowed religious institutions law apply, and the management of the institution falls within the scope of that secular legislation.
Facts of the case:
The appellants, claiming to represent a specific segment of the Arya Vysya Community worshipping a particular deity, sought recognition as a denominational temple under Article 26(d) of the Constitution. The High Court acknowledged their denominational status but held that the Managing Committee would necessarily include official members under the state Endowments Act, leading to the rejection of the claim. The central issue was whether the worshippers of a specific deity within the larger Arya Vysya Community formed a denominational section.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Hindu section of the Arya Vysya Community worshipping Goddess Matha Kanyakaparameswari does not constitute a denominational section for the purposes of Articles 26(b) and 26(d) of the Constitution. Consequently, the institution is subject to the provisions of the Endowments Act and is to be administered in accordance with the principles laid down in a prior decision regarding temple management.
Issues:
Whether a specific sect within the Hindu religion constitutes a denominational section under Article 26(b) and Article 26(d) of the Constitution, and whether such a claim is defeated by the operation of a state law governing religious endowments.
Ratio Decidendi:
The worship of a specific deity within a larger religious community does not, in itself, establish a distinct denominational section if the broader community is already recognised as a religious denomination. Consequently, such a group is not entitled to the special protections of Article 26(b) and Article 26(d), and the management of the institution is governed by the secular law applicable to religious endowments.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed.
Denominational - The judgment follows the ratio of this case that Hindu worshippers of God Shiva are not a denominational section and are not entitled to the benefit of Articles 26(b) and 26(d) of the Constitution.
Endowments - The judgment applies the law laid down in this case regarding the administration of institutions covered by the Endowments Act.
ORDER
CA Nos. 1340/86, 8535/94 & CA No. 2718/97 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8437/97 (CC-1840/89)
Delay condoned and leave granted in the special leave petitions. Application for intervention is dismissed.
2. The controversy raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi & Ors. v. The State of U.P. & Ors.1.
3. In the present case, the appellants-Satram Committee claimed the status of as a denominational temple under Article 26(d) of the Constitution. The High Court has held that they have the denominational status, but, nonetheless, it was negatived on the ground that the Managing Committee would be appointed with non-official and official members under the A.P. Charitable and Religious Institutions Endowment Act. Thus, the appellants claimed the status of a denominational one and the Government has questioned the later direction. Admittedly, the Arya Vysya Community is having as many as 102 gotras. In other words, they are representing a large segment of Hindus worshipping Goddess Matha Kanyakaparameswari. In the above cited case, the claim was that the Hindus who worship God Shiva constitute a denominational section entitled to the benefit of Articles 26(b) and 26(d) of the Constitution. A Bench of three Judges, to which both of us were members, had considered the matter in detail and held that Hindu Worshippers of God Shiva are not a denominational section and, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of Articles 26(b) and 26(d) of the Constitution for management of the temples. Following the above ratio, we hold that the Hindu sections of the Arya Vysya Community who worship Goddess Matha Kanyakaparameswari are not denominational section for the purpose of Articles 26(b) and 26(d) of the Constitution. As a consequence, it is an institution covered by the provisions of the Endowments Act. Accordingly, they are entitled to be administered in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Pannalal Bansilal Patti & Ors. v. State of A.P.2.
4. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
CA No. 1341/86
Following the above ratio, this appeal is allowed. No costs.
Appeals dismissed.
*******