SH. A.S. NARAYANA DEEKSHJTULU ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 543 · Decided: 19-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
SH. A.S. NARA Y ANA DEEKSHJTULU ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
MARCH.19, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]· 
1he Andhra Pradesh Chmitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and 
Endowments Act, 1987 : 
Sections 34 and 35-Mirasidars, Archakas and other office ho/ders--
Abolition of hereditary rights-Held not unconstitutional-Hereditary succes-
sion of Archakas held not a religious usage and thus not covered by Article 
25--Power co11fe1Ted on Commissioner to make appointment after abolition 
of hereditmy offic,,-Held not without guidelines. 
A 
B 
C 
Sections 36-Arclzakas-Prescription of qualifications f01~Held not D 
arbitra1y. 
Sections 39 and 142--0ffice holders and se1vants--Transfei-Power of 
provision held not ultra vires or unjust. 
Section 144-Right to shares in Hundi and other Rusums--Abolition E 
of-Held not violative of Articles 25 and 26. 
Constitution of India, 1950: A1ticles 25 and 26. 
Right to freedom of religion-Extent and scope· of-Protection of Ar-
ticles 25 and 26 held not limited to doctlin,,-Also extends to 1ituals and F 
ceremonies which a1~ integral p01t of religion-Difference between 'Religion' 
and 'Dha1n1a'-Between secularisni and secula1isation discussed. 
In these writ petitions and transfer cases the constitutionality of 
Sections 34, 35, 37, 39 and 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and 
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 bas been chat- G 
Ienged. 
Dismissing the petitions and upholding the validity of the impugned 
provisions, this Court 
HELD : (Per Ramaswamy, !.) 
543 
H 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
1. Articles 25 and 26 deal with and protect religious freedom. 
B 
Religiou as used in those Articles must be construed in its strict and 
etymological sense. Religion is that which binds a man with his Cosmos, 
his creator or super force. It is difficult and rather impossible to define or 
delimit the expressions "religion" or "matters of religion" used in Articles 
25 and 26. Essentially, religion is a matter of personal faith and belief of 
personal relations of an individual with what he regards as Cosmos, his 
Maker or his Creator which, he believes, regulates the existence of insen-
tient beings and the forces of the universe. Religion is not necessarily 
theistic. [607-G-H] 
C 
2. A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs and 
doctrine which are regarded by those who profess religion to be conducive 
to their spiritual well-being. A religion is not merely an opinion, doctrine 
or belief. It has outward expression in acts as well. It is not every aspect 
of religion that has been safe-guarded by Articles 25 and 26 nor has the 
D Constitution provided that every religious activity cannot be interfered 
with. Religion, therefore, cannot be construed in the context of Articles 25 
' 
and 26 in its strict and etymological sense. Every religion must believe in 
.,. 
E 
F 
a Conscience and ethical and moral precepts. Therefore, whatever binds a 
man to his own conscience and whatever moral or ethical principle regu-
late the lives of men believing in that theistic, conscience or religious belief 
that alone can constitution religion as understood in the Constitution 
which fosters feeling of brotherhood, amenity, fraternity and equality of all 
persons which find their foot-hold in secular aspect of the Constitution. 
Secular activities and aspects do not constitute religion which brings 
under its own cloak ever human activity. There is nothing which a man 
can do, whether in the way of wearing clothes or food or drink, which is 
not considered a religious activity. El'ery mundane or human activity was 
not intended to be protected by the Constitution under the guise of 
religion. The approach to construe the protection of religion or matters of 
religion or religious practices guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 must be 
viewed with pregmatism since by the very nature of things, it would be 
G extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define the expression religion or 
matters of religion or religious belief or practice. [608-B-F] 
3. The right to religion guaranteed under Article 25 or 26 is not an 
absolute or unfettered right to propagate religion which is subject to 
H legislation by the State limiting or regulating any activity-economic, finan-
j 
j 
A.S.N. DEEKSHITULU v. STATE 
545 
cial, political or secular which are associated with religious belief, faith, A 
practice or custom. They are subjec

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