M.P. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR AND ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 712 · Decided: 20-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · 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 
M.P. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR AND ANR. 
v. 
ST A TE OF KERA LA AND ORS. 
APRIL 20, 2005 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Religious Endowments : 
Guruvayoor Devasawom Act, 1978-Section 4-Management and 
C administration of Hindu temple-Management Committee of Guruvayoor 
Devasawom-Nomination of members, by Hindu Ministers in Council of 
Ministers of left Democratic Front-Plea that nomination by Hindu Ministers 
illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 25 and 26 as requirement of 
being 'Hindu' not satisfied-Held: Debarring all 'Hindu' Ministers of leftist 
Government from nominating members would lead to stalemate in the 
D Management Committee-When members of Managing Committee have to be 
believers in temple worship, there cannot be insistence that electorate college 
should be believers in temple worship-Further, Management Committee 
constituted represents denomination, it cannot be said that person authorized 
to nominate must also be representative of denomination-Management of the 
E temple is a secular act and can be controlled by the State-Denomination of 
devotees having no say or right in the administration-secular or religious of 
the temple prior to the Constitution, they cannot claim any such rights after 
the enactment of 1978 Act-Constitution of India, 19550-Articles 25 and 26. 
F 
'Hindu '-Concept of-Discussed 
Maxim-ut ragis magis va/eat quam pareat-Applicability of-
Interpretation of Statutes. 
Guruvay_~Qr Devasawom Ac( 1978 was enacted for proper 
administration of Gdfuvayoor Devasawom. Under s.4 of the Act, the 
G members of Council of Ministers who are Hindus from amongst persons 
having interest in the temple were to nominate five members to the 
Managing Committee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. Appellants filed 
writ petition for issuance of direction to Hindus in the Council of Ministers 
of the Leftist Democratic Front to refrain from nominating Members to 
H 
712 
-
1. 
• 
M.P. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR v. STATE OF KERALA 
713 
the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee on the ground that A 
they were not believers in god and temple worship and as such the 
nomination made by them as members of Committee was violative of 
Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Writ Petition was dismissed. Hence 
the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD : I.I. The word 'Hindu' is not defined. A Hindu may or may 
not be a person professing Hindu religion or a believer in temple worship. 
A Hindu has a right to choose his own method of worship. He may or 
may not visit a temple. He may have a political compulsion not to openly 
proclaim that he believes in temple worship. Idol worships, rituals and C 
ceremonials may not be practised by a person although he may profess 
Hindu religion. 
Krishnan v. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee, (1979) KLT 
350, relied on. 
1.2. The legislature has not qualified 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 
D 
(as the religion itself is) giving the widest freedom to people of all· hues 
opinion, philosophies and beliefs to come within its fold. The legislature 
was also well aware of the 4"0nglomeration/diversity of thought that E 
prevailed in the Hindu religion but it did not choose to limit 'Hindus' to 
the category those who believe in god, temple worship and profess Hindu 
faith. There is no absurdity or ambiguity which compels a departure 
from the plain language and to read section 4 of the Guruvayoor 
Devasawom Act, 1978 as meaning something more than what is expressed. 
To debar all 'Hindu' Ministers of leftist Government, from nominating F 
members to the Managing Committee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom will 
lead to stalemate in the Management of the Devaswom. [728-C-F) 
Shastri Yagnapurushdasji and Ors. v. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya and 
Anr., AIR/(1966) SC 1119 and Dayal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and G 
Ors;, 12003) 2 SCC 593, relied on. 
1.3. The 1978 Act has ensured that only persons who believe in 
te~ple worship are to be in the management of the temple and that none 
except the Thanthri gets any voice in the spiritual administration of the 
temple and that his voice alone will prevail in such matters. The practice 
of religion by the denomination including customs, practices and rituals H 
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2005) 3 S.C.R. 
A is preserved in its entirety and there is no tampering therewit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.