LexSRI ADI VISHESHWARA OF KASHI VISHWANATH TEMPLE, VARANASI AND ORS. ETC. versus THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SRI ADI VISHESHWARA OF KASH! VISHWANATH B c TEMPLE, VARANASI AND ORS. ETC. v .. THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. MARCH 14, 1997 [K. RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASW~I AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 25 and 26-Right to profess, practise and propagate religion, and right to m01iage religious affairs-Provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Sri Kashi Vishwa11ath Temple Ac~ 1983, providi11g for proper a11d better ad- mi11istratio11 of Temple and its e11dowment-Held, not violative of Articles 25 and 26-Administratio11 of properties belo11ging to religious groups or i11Stit11- D tions are not matters of religio11-Believers of Shiva f onn of worship are not a denominational sect or sectio11 of Hindus but they are Hindus as such, entitled to protection under Articles 25 and 26--But not e11t1tled to protection, in particular, of clauses (b) 011d ( d) of Article 26. E U.P. Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 : Ss. 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 and 22--Provisio11s of the Act declari11g that ow11er- ship of Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple would vest in deity of Sri Kashi Vishwa11ath a11d administration and govema11ce of the temple 011d its endow- ment would vest i11 the Board of Trnstees of the Temple--Held, are not F violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitutio11. The Temple of Lord Vishwanath at Varanasi, otherwise known as Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi, was until the promulgation of the U.P. Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Ordinance dated January 24, 1983, being managed by Mahants and Pandas of the Temple. There was mismanage· G ment of the Temple, and the devotees and pilgrims visiting the temple were subjected to exploitation. Even the jewellery of Lord Shiva was stolen in January 1983. The State Government constituted a Committee, which ret;ommended to the Government to take effective steps for protection and proper management of the Temple and to provide efficient and proper H management for orderly visit and prayer by the devotees comirig daily to 1086 . - ·. SRI ADI VISHESHWARA OF KASH! VISHWANATI-1 TEMPLE"· SfATE 1087 the precincts of the Temple in millions from all over the coimtry and A abroad. Accordingly, the Ordinance· dated 24.1.1983 was promulgated. The Government also issued on 28.1.1983 a notification specifying the "ap· pointed date" under the Ordinance to be 28.1.1983. Thereafter two other Ordinances were promulgated and, ultimately, the Uttar Pradesh Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 was enacted and it was made operative w.e.f. 28.1.1983 i.e. the 'appointed date' under the first Ordinance. The Act B provided, i11ter alia, that ownership of the Temple and its endo~ment would west in the deity of Shri Kashi Vishwanath, the presiding diety of the Temple; and the management of the Temple an~ the endowment would vest in the Board of Trustees for Shri Kashi Viswanatb as defined under s. 4(3) and constituted under s. 6 of the Act. The Board consisted of 8 non-officials C well versed in the knowledge and experience in Hindu theology, manage· ment and administration of Temple, 2 local officials and 5 Secretaries to · the Government of Uttar Pradesh having diverse experience. Writ petitions were filed before the High Couri, challenging initially the Ordinance and ultimately the Act, primarily on the ground that the D Act infringed writ petitioners' fundamental right enshrined in Articles 25(1) and 26(b) of the Constitution. The High Court upheld the validity of the Act. Aggrieved the writ petitioners filed the present appeals. It was contended for the appellants that the Temple was a denomina- E tional temple of Shivaits of which the appellants were members and they had exclusive right to worship and manage the temple including the right to perform pooja and ceremonies and to receive offerings made by pilgrims to Lord Shiva, and the Act infringed their fundamental rights to profess and practice their religious belief as enshrined in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution; that the Act was violative of their right of livelihood guaran- teed by Article 21 of the Constitution; and that the appellants were entitled to be nominated as members of Board of Trustees of the Temple and absence of any provision in the Act in that behalf was violative of their right. Dismissing th·e appeals, this Court F G HELD : 1.1. Believers of Shaiva form of worship are not a denomina· tional sect or section of Hindus but they are Hindus as such. Every Hindu whether a bel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.