SHRI JAGANNA TEMPLE PURI MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR AND ANR. ETC. versus CHINTAMANI KHUNTIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 17-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SHRI JAGANNA nr TEMPLE PURI MANAGEMENT 
COMMITTEE REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS 
ADMINISTRATOR AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
CH INT AMAN! KHUNTIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 17, 1997 
[J.S. VERMA, CJ., SUHAS C. SEN AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 (As amended from 3.5.1983): 
Section 28B, 28C-Religious or property rights of Temple attendants 
(Sevaks)-Offerings made to deity in Temple-Right of Sevaks to get portion 
A 
B 
c 
of it~Installation of Hundis for collection of offerings inside Temple under 
Section 28B-Collection and distribution of these offerings or retention of 
portion of the offerings for maintenance and upkeep of the Temple are secular D 
activities belonging to the domain of the management and administration of 
the Temple-Hence, there is no religious or property rights of Sevaks to get 
portion of the offerings-Held, the provisions are not violative of Articles 
25(/);,26 or 300-A of the Constitution-Constitution of India, Articles 25(1), 
26 or 300-A. 
E 
Section 28-C(9)-Powers of State-A/I the activities in or connected 
with a Temple are not religious activities-Management of the Temple or 
maintenance of discipline and order inside the Temple are secular acts and 
can be controlled by the State~tate can set up the foundation fund out qf 
donations made to Temple-Held, Sevaks cannot claim any share out of F 
donations or contributions made to the foundation fund as of right-Hence, 
Section 28-C(9) does not contravene the provisions of Articles 25(1), 26 or 
300-A of the Constitution-Constitutions of India, Articles 25(1), 26 or 300-
A. 
A writ petition was filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section G 
25-8(5), 28-C(5)(a) and 28-C(9) of Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 (As 
amended from 3.5.1983), on the ground that the encroachments were made 
upon the religious practice and rights of the Sevaks. It was contended that 
the new provisions for installation of Hundis in the temple for placing 
offerings by pilgrims or devotees were not in consonance with the temple 
151 
H" 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A tradition. The rights of the Sevaks to get a•share in the Veta and Pindika 
(offerings) made by the pilgrims constituted 'property' ofSevaks and was an 
integral part of religious rite of performing Seva to Lord Jagannath and this 
right cannot be taken away without payment of proper compensation. 
Therefore, not only the religious right protected under Articles 25 and 26 of 
B the Constitution v. ere violated but the provisions of Article 300 A were also 
violated by taking away the right of property of the Sevaks. 
The High Court in allowing the writ observed that the right of the 
Petitioner-Sevaks to get a share of Veta and Pindika was a part and parcel of 
the Seva performed by them according to the' Records of Rights' and right to 
C get a share of the offerings could not be separated from the performance of 
the religious duties by the Sevaks and as sucfl the sub-section (5) of Section 
28-B and sub-section (9) of Section 28-C amounted to interference in religious 
practice and was thus ultra vires of the Constitution. Hence the present 
appeals. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The installation of Hundis for collection of offerings made 
by the devotees inside the Temple did not violate the religious rights of the 
Sevaks of the Temple in any manner even though the Sevaks were denied a 
share out of the offerings made in the Hundis. Section 28-B of the Act cannot 
" 
L 
be struck down as violative of r~ligious or property rights of the Sevaks. 
[175-G-H] 
1.2. Collection and distribution of monies start after the devotees had 
done their worship and made the offerings to the deity. This is done as a token 
of devotion of the pilgrims. But after the worship by thj devotees is over, 
F sweeping, collecting and distribution of the portion ofofferings to the temple 
staff are not parts of any religious exercise. The manner of collection and 
distribution of a portion of the offerings among the temple staff may have a 
history of long uses but such uses cannot be part of religious practice or a 
religious right. It is an act of the pure and simple collection of money for 
G which prescribed portion is given to those who collect the money. It is nothing 
but a way of remunerating the Sevaks for the jobs done. Thi; Sevaks cannot 
be said to be professing, practising or propagating region by these acts of . 
collection of money for remuneration. (16
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.