DIGYADARSAN RAJENDRA RAMDASSJL VARU versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 103 · Decided: 26-03-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ll 
DIGYADARSAN RA.JENDRA RAMDASS.Jl VARU 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. 
March 26, 1969 
(J .. C,$HAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND AN, GROVER, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and liindu Relinious Institutions anl. · 
Endowments Act (11 of 1966), s.,, 46 and 41-lf violative 
of Arts. 
14, 19(1)(/), 25(1) and 26(b) and (d) of the Constitution of Indill. 
On November 18, 1968, fourteen char¥es under '· 46(1) 
of the 
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endow-
ments Act, 1966, were preferred against the petitioner \Vho was. the Matha .. 
dhipathi . of Sri Swami Hathiramji 
Math, 
Tirupathi-Thirumalla. 
Under 
'· 46(3) he was suspended from his office pending enquiry under s. 46(2), 
and under s. 47, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, 
was directed to attend to the day-to-day administration of the Math and 
it• endowments temporarily until the disposal of the inquiry. The peti-
tioner challenged the constitutional validity of ss. 46 and 47 as violative 
of his fundamental rights under Arts. 14, !9(1)(f), 25(1) and 26(b) and 
( d), in a petition under A rt. 3 2. 
HELD : (I) A mathadhipathi is the head and superior of a spiritual 
fraternity and the purpose of a math is to encourage and foster 'Spiritual 
training by the maintenance of a competent line of teachers who could 
impart religious instruction to the disciples and followers of the math and 
ro strengthen the doctrines of the particular school or order of which they 
prdfess to be adherents. 
By virtue of his office he is under an obligation 
to di!charge his duties as a trustee and is answerable as such.. He enjoys 
large poweri for the benefit of the institution of which he is the head. 
He is to incur expenditure for the math. that is, for carrying on religious 
worship, for the disciples, and for maintaining the dignity of his office. 
If he cannot perform his duties either as a spiritual or a temporal head or 
cannot properly administer or manage 
the trust property 
or has 
been 
guilty of breach of trust o·r wilful default or lead:; an immoral life, action 
can be taken against him under s. 46(1). The power is given to the 
Commissioner to make an inquiry into or try the allegations or charges 
against him and to order his removal if the charges are established. Under 
s. 104 of the Act, the proceedings before the Commissioner are quasi-
judicial, and if- he makes an order of rem6val, it can be challenged in 
a 
suit in a court of law with a right of appeal to the High Court. As regards 
the power to suspend under s. 46(3), the power of suspension, pending 
inquiry, is a necessary and reasonable part of the procedure. If the matha-
dh1pathi is allowed to function during the pendency of an enquiry he may 
tamper with the evidence against him and the purpose o[ the enquiry may 
be defeated. There'fore, the restrictions imposed by the impugned provi-
"Sions are reasonable and in the intereo:;t of general publ;c and do nf'• 
violate Arts. 14 and 19(1) (f). [109 F-G; 111 C-F; 112 B-E]. 
The Commissioner, 
Hindu 
Relit::iou'! 
Endow1nents. 
Mndraf; v. Sr. 
Lakshmindra Thirt/1a Swnmiar of Shirur Mutt. [19541 S.C.R. 1005 
end 
H. H. Sudhundra Thirtha Swa1niar v. Co1n111issioner for Hindu Religiou.' 
and Charitable_ Endow:nents. Mysore, [196Jl Supp. 2 S.C.R. 30~, referred· 
to. 
104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1970) I S.C.R 
(2) Under Ari. 25(1 ), the petitioner has a fundamental right to prac-
fae and propagate his religion freely, but, by the Commissioner exercis-
ing his poweo under s. 4 7 or the Act, the petitioner had not been prohi-
bited or debarred 'from professina. practisina and propagating hts religion. 
He could enter the Math and exercise the fundamental right. (113 E] 
(3) There is nothing in ss. 46 and 47 which 
empower the Commis-
sioner to interfere with the autonomy of the rcli~ious denomination in the 
111attcr of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according 
to the tenets of the religion the denomination 
professes 
or practises. 
Neither the Commissioner nor the 1'..ssistant Commissioner who bas been 
put in charge of the day-lo-day affairs 
have interfered in such matters. 
Therefore, there is no contravention di Art. 26(b). Under Art. 26(dl, a 
relipous denomination or itJ representative has the fundamental right to 
administer property accordin~ to law. The provisions of s. 47 do 
not 
take away the right of admimstration from the hands of a reliaioU1 deno-
·mination
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.