RAJA BIRAKISHORE versus THE STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 32 · Decided: 05-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

196~ 
.Jl•rch 6 
-
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
RAJA BIRAKISHORE 
v. 
THE STATE OF ORISSA 
' [1964 
IP. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH, 
4
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR ANDS. M. SIKRI JJ.] 
1
Fundamental rights-Interference with religious affairs of 
Temple-Constitution of India, 
Art. 31(2)-Applicability-Shri 
Jagannath· Tempie Ah, 1954 (No. II of 1955), ss. 8, 11, 18, 21, 21A 
and 3()-Validity-Constitution of India, Arts. 13, 19, 26(d), 27 
and 28. 
A writ petition was filed in the Orissa High Court by the 
father of the appellant challenging the validity of Shri Jagan-
nath Temple Act, 1954. 
The petition was dismissed by High 
Court which held that the Act was valid and constitutional 
except s. 28(2)(f). The High Court struck down that provision 
and upheld the constitutionality of the rest of the Act. The ap-
pellant came to this Court after obtaining a certificate of fitness 
to appeal to Supreme Court. 
The contentions raised b'efore this Court were that the Act 
was discriminatory. as the Jagannath Temple alone had been 
singled out for special treatment as compared to other temples 
in the State of Orissa. The Act took away the sole management of 
the Temple which had so far .been vested in the appellant or his 
ancestors. S. 15(1) of the Act interfered with the religious affairs 
of the temple. The valiclity of ss. 11, 19, 21, 21A and 30 of the Act 
was also attacked. Dismissing the appeal, 
Held: There is no violation of Art. 14 af the Constitution. 
The J agannath Temple occupies a unique position in the State 
of Orissa, and is a temple of national importance and no other 
temple in that State can compare with it. It stands in a class by 
itself and considering the fact that it attracts pilgrims from all 
over India in large numbers, it could be the subject of special 
consideration by the State Government. A law· may be consti-
tutional even though it related to a single individual if on 
account of special circumstances or reasons applicable to him 
and not 
applicable to others, that single individual may be 
treated as a class by himself. 
. 
(ii) There was no violation of Art. 19(1) (f) or Art.. 31(2) of 
the Constitution. All that the Act has done is that it has taken 
away the sole right of the appellant to manage the property of 
the Temple and another body has been set up in its olace with 
the appellant as its Chairman. Such a process cannot be said to 
constitute the acquisition of the extinguished office or of the 
vesting of the rights in the person holding that office. The ap-
pellant occupied a dual position as Superintendent and. Adya 
Sevak. His position as Superintendent has gone and in that place 
he has become the Chairman of the Committee set up under s. 6. 
The position of the applicant as Adya Sevak is safeguarded by 
s. 8 of the Act inasmuch as the rights and privileges in respect of 
Gajapati Maharaja Seva a.re protected even though he may cease 
to be Chairman on account of his minority or on· account of some 
other reason. 
· 
· 
(iii) S. l5(1) of the Act does not interfere with the religious 
affairs of the Temple. Sevapuja of the Temple has two aspects. 
One aspect is the provision of materials and that is a secular 
' 
-, , 
-·
'1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
33 
function. The second aspect is the performance of the Sevapuja 
1964 
and other rights as required by religion. S. 15(1) has nothing 
--
to do with the second aspect which is the religious aspect of Seva-Raja Birakishore 
puja. Whiles. 15(1) imposes a duty on the committee to look after 
, v. 
. 
the secular aspect of the Sevapuja, it leave the religious part The State of Or1Bsa 
entirely untc,uched. 
-
(iv) Ss. 11, 19 and 21 were valid provisions and could not be 
attacked as ss. 5 and 6 constitut'ng the committee in place of 
the Raja, were valid. Ss. 21A and 30 were also valid. 
Arts. 27 and 28 had nothing to do with the matter dealt with 
under Act. It was not open to the appellant to argue that the 
Act was bad as it was hit by Art. 26(d). No such contention wa• 
properly raised in the High Court. 
Tilkayat, Shri Govindlal ii v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. (1963) 
S.C. 1638, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 135 
of 1962. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 30, 1958, 
of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 321 of 1955. 
M. C. Setalvad, Sarjoo Prasad and A. D. Mathur, for the 
appellant. 
' 
S. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor-General, M. S. K. Sastri 
and R. N.

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