NAR HARI SASTRI AND OTHERS versus SHRI BADRINATH TEMPLE COMMITTEE

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 849 · Decided: 09-05-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

"' 
.. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
NAR HARi SASTRI AND OTHERS 
v. 
SHRI BADRINATH TEMPLE COMMITTEE. 
[SAIYAD FAZL ALI J., MuKHERJEA and DAs JJ.] 
849 
Hindu law-Religious Endowments-Right to worship-Right 
of Pandas 
to accompany 
worshippers to 
temple-Bye-law 
of 
temple committee to prohibit taking of gifts within temple precincts 
-Validity-Badrinath Temple Act, 1939, ss. 3, 4. 
The right of the Deoprayagi Pandas to enter the Badrinath 
Temple along with their Yajmans is not a precarious or 
permis-
sive right depending for its existence on the arbitrary 
dis-
cretion of the temple authorities; it is a legal right in the true 
sense of the expression, but it can be exercised only subject to 
the restrictions which the temple committee may impose in good 
faith for maintenance of order and decorum within the 
temple 
and for ensuring proper performance of customary worship. 
There is nothing in the Badrinath Temple Act, 1939, which 
vests in the temple committee or the idol, gifts made to Pandas 
within the precincts of the temple. 
But bye-law (8) of the Puja 
Bye-laws framed by the temple committee which forbids the 
acceptance of gifts 
by 
any person within the precincts of the 
temple unless he comes within the category 
of persons 
specifi-
cally authorised by the committee to receive the same is a valid 
bye-law, which it was quite competent for the committee to enact 
under the terms of clauses ( m) and ( n) of sec. 25 of the Act 
and 
in view of this bye-law the Pandas are not entitled to a declar-
ation by the Court that they have a right to take, within the 
precincts of the temple, whatever they receive as gifts 
at 
the 
time of worship. 
C1VIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 105 of 1951. 
On appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
the 22nd November, 1946, of the High Court of Judi-
cature at Allahabad (Verma C.J. and Mathur J.) 
in 
First Appeal :t)To. 310 of 1941 arising out of judgment 
and decree dated the 4th March, 1941, of the Court of 
the Senior Civil Judge of Pauri, Garhwal, in Original 
Suit No. 1 of 1934. 
K. S. Krishnaswamy Iyengar (R. C. Ghatak and 
N. C. Sen, with him) for the appellants. 
_..,. 
S. K. Dar (D. D. Unival, with him) for the res-
pondent. 
1952 
May 9. 
1952 
Nar Hari Sastri 
and Others 
v; 
Shri Badrinath 
Temple 
Committee. 
M uk heriea /. 
850 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952) 
1952. May 9. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MuKHERJEA J.-The 
sanctity 
which 
orthodox 
Hindu thought and ;Eeeling attribute to 1visiting of 
sacred places is nowhere better illustrated than in the 
vast concourse of 
pilgrims, who are 
attracted every 
year, from all parts of India, to the mountain shrines 
at Badrinath, situated, high up in the Himalayas, in 
the District of Garhwal. 
The place to which 
the 
appellation od' 'Puri' is given, contains a number of 
temples but the principal temple is the one where the 
idol 
Badrinath along with 
some 
other subsidiary 
idols is in.tailed. This main temple is divided into 
three portions or apartments, and to the innermost 
portion which is 
considered to be 
the holiest and 
where the deities are located, no pilgrim is allowed 
access. 
The pilgrims gather in the middle room; 
they have 'darshan' or look at the diety from this 
place and there also they 
make their offerings 
and 
perform 
other . rites 
of individual worship. 
The last 
room is an outer apartment which is used as a sort of 
waiting 
place 
for 
the 
worshippers. 
Outside 
the 
temple and at a short distance from it, there is a hot 
spring known as Tapta Kundu where the worshippers 
take ceremonial bath before they enter into the temple 
and to the Tapta Kundu they come back again after 
the ceremonies are over. 
The temple at Badrinath is an ancient institution and 
is admittedly a public place of worship for the Hindus. 
The chief priest or ministrant of the temple is known 
by the name of 'Rawal' who originally looked after 
both· the spiritual 
and temporal 
affairs of the idol 
subject to certain rights of supervision and control 
cxercisab'.le 
by 
the 
Tehri Durbar 
which, however, 
were not very clearly defined. 
It appears that there was a scheme for the manage-
ment of the temple framed by the Commissioner of 
Kumaun 
division, 
within whose jurisdiction Badri-
nath is situated, some time in the year 1899. Under 
this 
scheme, 
'Rawal' 
was 
to 
be 
the 
sole 
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
851 
trustee 
of 
the 
Badrinath 
temple 
a

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