DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 308 · Decided: 06-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 308 
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10620 of 2013) 
JANUARY 6, 2014 
[DR. B. S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
c 
Art. 26 -
Freedom to manage religious affairs -
'Religious denomination' - Connotation of - Held: Art. 26(d) 
protects the rights of 'religious denomination' to establish and 
administer the properties as clauses (c) and (d) guarantee a 
fundamental right to any religious denomination to own, 
0 acquire, establish and maintain such properties -
Rights of 
'denominational religious institutions' are to be preserved and 
protected from any invasion by State as guaranteed under Art. 
26 and as statutorily embodied in s.107 of Madras Hindu 
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 -
A law 
which takes away the right to administer religious 
E denomination altogether and vests it in any other authority 
would amount to a violation of right guaranteed in clause (d) 
of Art. 26 -
Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable 
Endowments Act, 1959 -s. 107. 
F 
MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE 
ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1959: 
s. 107 rl w ss. 44 and 45 (2) - Protection of rights of 
'religious denomination' in consonance with Art. 26 of 
G Constitution of India - Rights of Oikshitars to maintain Sri 
Sabhanayagar Temple at Chidambaram -
Appointment of 
Executive Officer to maintain the Temple - Writ petition 
dismissed by High Court holding that the earlier judgment in 
H 
308 
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. STATE OF TAMIL 
309 
NADU 
Marimuthu Dikshitar1 did not operate as res judicata ~ Held: A 
' In Marimuthu Dikshitar, which had attained finality, it was 
recognized: (a) That Dikshitars, who are Smarthi Brahmins, 
form and constitute a 'religious denomination'.· (b) Dikshitars 
are entitled to participate in administration of the Temple; and 
(c) It was their exclusive privilege which had been recognised 
B 
and established for over several centuries -
These issues 
stood finally determined by High Court and, thus, doctrine of 
res judicata is applicable in full force - The declaration that 
"Dikshitars are religious denomination or section thereof' is 
a declaration of their status and making such declaration is c 
a judgment in rem -
Res judicata - Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908 - 0. 47, r. 1 - Review. 
s. 107 rlw ss. 45 and 116 -
Appointment of Executive 
Officer to 
manage Sri Sabhanayagar Temple at 
Chidambaram -
Held: In view of the fact that rights of D 
Dikshitars to administer·the Temple had already been finally 
determined by High Court in 1951, State authorities under the 
Act 1959 could not pass any order denying those rights -
Act 1959 had been enacted after pronouncement of the 
judgment in Marimuthu Dikshitar's case, but there is nothing 
E 
in the Act taking away the rights of Dikshitars declared by the 
court, in the Temple or in the administration thereof -
An 
Executive Officer could not have been appointed in the 
absence of any rules prescribing conditions subject to which 
such appointment could have been made. 
F 
ss. 44 and 45 r/w s. 107 - Super-session of administration 
of Temple - Held: Super-session of rights of administration 
cannot be of a permanent enduring nature -
Its life has to 
be reasonably fixed so as to be co-terminus with the removal G 
of the consequences of ma/administration -
Even if the 
management of a temple is taken over to remedy the evil, the 
management must be handed over to the person concerned 
immediately after the evil stands remedied -
Continuation 
1. 
Marimuthu Dikshitar v. The State of Madras & Anr. 1952 (1) MLJ 557. 
H 
310 
SUPRFME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 1 S.C.R . 
. I\ thereafter would tantamount to usurpation of such proprietary 
rights or violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the 
Constitution in favour of the person(s) concerned -
Impugned order is liable to be set aside for failure to prescribe 
the duration for which it will be in force. 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; 
0.47, r5 - Review - Scope of- Explained - Held: Even 
an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the court to 
undertake review, as the first and foremost requirement of 
C entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which 
is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the 
order and in absence of any such error, finality attached to 
i'he judgment/order cannot be disturbed. 
D 
RES JUD/CATA: 
Res judicata - Meaning of - Explained - Maxims, "res 
;udicata pro v

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.