9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Zamorin Raja was entrusted with the management of the Temple under the supervision of the officers of the Board. The Karanavan of the Mallissery Illom thereupon filed O.S. No. 1 of 1929 before the District Court of South-Malabar. The worshippers of the Temple also filed O.S. No. 2 of 1929 in the same court praying for framing up of a proper scheme which would give appropriate representation to the non-hereditary trustees from among the devotees. The District Court by a judgment and decree dated 25-10-1929 upheld the claim of the Karanavan of the Mallissery Illom to be made a joint trustee along with Zamorin Raja as a result whereof the scheme was amended. The Zamorin Raja preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court of Madras which were marked as A.S. No. 211 and 212 of 1930. The High Court of Madras disposed of the appeals by a common judgment dated 21-11-1930 confirming the decision of the District Court rejecting the prayer for appointment of non-hereditary trustees. Some modifications in the said scheme were made later on. The Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1971, Act 6 of 1971 was framed after the Government established a Commission to enquire into the cause of the fire, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding disposal of the above original petition before this Honourable Court;" A Division Bench of the said Court having regard to the importance of the question involved in the writ petition by an order dated 9th July, 1999 referred the matter to a larger bench. By reason of the impugned judgment, a 5-Judge Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed the said writ petition. The Appellants herein are, thus, before us. SUBMISSIONS: Mr. M.K.S. Menon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants would contend that the expression 'Hindu' having not been defined either in the 1978 Act or Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act must be construed in the light of the series of decisions rendered by the Kerala High Court, as a person who believes in god and temple worship and professes Hindu faith. A person belonging to the denomination in relation to a temple, according to Appellants, must not only be entitled to attend at the performance of the worship or service but also must be in the habit of attending such performance. As the Hindu members of the then Council of Ministers (Respondent Nos. 4 to 14) did not satisfy such requirements having regard to their politi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o are not believers in God and Temple Worship can, by reason of their not having faith in Hindu God and Temple worship, are disqualified from nominating the members of the Managing Committee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom, who should have faith in God and Temple worship, and must also make and subscribe an oath affirming their faith in God and Hindu Religion and believe in Temple worship. JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT (a) The High Court noticed that in Krishnan (supra), the 5-Judge Bench upheld the validity of the 1978 Act holding that the Committee did not represent the denomination. (b) Article 25 merely secures to every citizen, subject to public order, morality and health, a freedom specified therein but the State has the requisite power to make laws regulating economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice. (c) Furthermore, the State has reserved unto itself the power to make laws providing for social reform and social welfare even though they might interfere with religious practices. (d) The Bench in Krishnan (supra) merely directed for consideration of the Government whether the nomination could be given to a statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sisting on the date of the coming into force of the Constitution of India to the effect that the denomination of the temple worshipers had a right to be in the Management Committee and members of the Management Committee were to be elected or nominated by an electoral college consisting of members of such denomination. (m) The 1978 Act is not violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. (n) It was observed: "39. Before parting with this case, we want to make it clear that it is a very important function or duty that is assigned to the nominating persons, namely, the duty of constituting a Committee for the efficient management and administration of Guruvayur Temple. It is true that the Act prescribed that persons who are elected as members of the Managing Committee should be persons who have faith in Temple Worship and they have also to give a declaration to that effect. But, every man who believes in God and Temple worship may not be a good or efficient administrator or may not be aware of the formalities of temple management. It is our earnest hope and desire that the persons nominated by the Hindu Ministers should be of high integrity and honesty and should d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I profess the Hindu Religion and believe in temple worship and that I do not believe in the practice of untouchability." CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE APPELLANTS: Before adverting to the questions raised at the Bar, we must place on record that the Appellants herein did not question the constitutionality of Section 4 of the 1978 Act. The provisions of the Act merely were required to be read in the light of the different judgments rendered by the Kerala High Court. While it may be true that in certain cases a statute in the nature of the 1978 Act may have to be read in the light of the provisions contained in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, but the same would not mean while doing so the Court shall extend the protection granted thereby. Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India read, thus: "25. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND FREE PROFESSION, PRACTICE AND PROPAGATION OF RELIGION. (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... national disintegration and fail the parliamentary democratic system and the Constitution. Judicial process must promote citizens' active participation in electoral process uninfluenced by any corrupt practice to exercise their free and fair franchise. Correct interpretation in proper perspective would be in the defence of the democracy and to maintain the democratic process on an even keel even in the face of possible friction, it is but the duty of the court to interpret the Constitution to bring the political parties within the purview of constitutional parameters for accountability and to abide by the Constitution, the laws for their strict adherence. It is now well-settled: (i) The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a theocratic State. (ii) The Constitution is not only prohibited to establish any religion of its own but is also prohibited to identify itself with or favouring any particular religion. (iii) The secularism under the Indian Constitution does not mean constitution of an atheist society but it merely means equal status of all religions without any preference in favour of or discrimination against any one of them. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: The man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orship, rituals and ceremonials as necessary or even conducive to the spiritual progress of man. There are also political creeds or social theories which openly condemn such forms of worship as being based on mere superstition and ignorance. Many persons, who are born Hindus and who may be said to profess Hinduism solely because they have not openly renounced the Hindu faith by any recognized process, may ardently believe in such political or social ideologies which do not view temple worship with favour." The legislature has not chosen to qualify the word "Hindu" in any manner. The meaning of word is plain and who is a Hindu is well known. The legislature was well aware that "Hindu" is a comprehensive expression (as the religion itself is) giving the widest freedom to people of all hues opinion, philosophies and beliefs to come within its fold. [See Shastri Yagnapurushdasji and others Vs. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya and another, AIR 1966 SC 1119 and Dayal Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 593, para 37] The legislature was also well aware of the conglomeration diversity of thought that prevailed in the Hindu religion but it did not choose to limit 'Hin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evail in such matters. The practice of religion by the denomination including customs, practices and rituals is, therefore, preserved in its entirety and there is no tampering therewith in any manner whatsoever. It is not clear how vesting of such a right on the Hindus in the Council of Ministers can effect their denominational rights when the members of the Managing Committee, the Commissioner and the Administrator have all got to be believers in temple worship. To insist on such a qualification in the electorate will be as bad saying that when the law relating to a temple is under consideration in the legislature, only Hindu legislators can vote and they must further be qualified as believers in temple worship. It is expected that the action of such a body would be bona fide and reasonable. Once a committee is constituted which would be representing the denomination, in our opinion, it would be not be correct to contend that even the authority empowered to nominate must also be representative of the denomination. Indisputably the State has the requisite jurisdiction to oversee the administration of a temple subject to Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The grieva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and vest the same in a Committee of which he would remain the Chairman. [See Raja Bira Kishore Deb, hereditary Superintendent, Jagannath Temple, P.O. and District Puri Vs. The State of Orissa, AIR 1964 SC 1501] It is also now trite that although State cannot interfere with the freedom of a person to profess, practise and propagate his religion, the secular matters connected therewith can be the subject matter of control by the State. The management of the temple primarily is a secular act. The temple authority controls the activities of various servants of the temple. It manages several institutions including educational institutions pertaining to it. The disciplinary power over the servants of the temple, including the priest may vest in a committee. The payment of remuneration to the temple servants was also not a religious act but was of purely secular in nature. [See Shri Jagannath Temple Puri Management Committee represented through its Administrator and Another Vs. Chintamani Khuntia and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 422, Pannalal Bansilal Pitti and Others Vs. State of A.P. and Another, (1996) 2 SCC 498 and Bhuri Nath and Others Vs. State of J&K and Others, (1997) 2 SCC 745]. State o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a leftist Council of Ministers) are ipso facto non believers in god or in temple worship. Such a sweeping allegation or premise on which the prayer is based need not be correct. It depends on each individual approach. The observations in a judgment should not be, it is trite, read as a ratio. A decision, as is well-known, is an authority of what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. [See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. para 42 - (2005) 1 SCALE 385 and Haryana State Coop. Land Dev. Bank Vs. Neelam, JT 2005 (2) SC 600] So far as the decision of Narayanan Namboodiri (supra) is concerned, we are of the opinion that the High Court in its impugned judgment has rightly held the same to be not applicable to the fact of the present case. In Muraleedharan Nair (supra), whereuon Mr. Menon has placed strong reliance, the Bench was concerned with the interpretation of Sections 4 and 6 of the Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. In that case for the purpose of contesting election, the candidate in the nomination paper itself was required to comply with Rule 3(b) mentioned in the Scheduled II which reads, thus: "3(b) The person nominated s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which require efficient and prompt management. This is quiet apart from the spiritual management dealing with religious side which is under the sole control management and guidance of the Thanthri. It is the secular aspect of the management that is vested in the Management Committee. We have noticed hereinbefore that it is one thing to say that prejudice may be caused if the management of temple is entrusted to a person who has no faith in temple worship but it is another thing to say that such persons are nominated by those who may not have any such faith but those nominated would not only be believers in God but also in temple worship. The function of a statutory and constitutional authority while exercising its power of nomination cannot be equated with the power of management of a temple, particularly, in relation to the religious aspects involved therein. One further question which may arise is as to whether Articles 25 or 26 can be invoked on the facts of the present case. There is no case for the Appellant that Section 4 insofar as it provides for the constitution of the Managing Committee is violative of any rights. If this be the position, the claim that the right of nom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police [(1999) 6 SCC 559 : JT 1999 (5) SC 410], this Court observed: "7 The volte-face of the Union of India cannot be frowned at, for, it is open to the State or Union of India or even a private party to retrace or even resile from a concession once made in the court on a legal proposition. Firstly, because the party concerned, on a reconsideration of the proposition could comprehend a different construction as more appropriate. Secondly, the construction of statutory provision cannot rest entirely on the stand adopted by any party in the lis. Thirdly, the parties must be left free to aid the court in reaching the correct construction to be placed on a statutory provision. They cannot be nailed to a position on the legal interpretation which they adopted at a particular point of time because saner thoughts can throw more light on the same subject at a later stage." The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, did not commit any error whatsoever in allowing the State to file a supplementary affidavit resiling from such concession made in the earlier case as had been noticed in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment. A wrong concession of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
