SRI SRI SRI LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR .

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 929 · Decided: 24-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

... 
-
'f 
SRI SRI SRI LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU AND ORS. ETC. ETC. A 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR . 
JANUARY 24, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Chan'table and Hindu Religious Institrltions and En-
dowments Act. I987/Agam Shastra Pandit Se1vice Rules, 1987. 
B 
Ss.2(16) 2(29), 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55-Mathadhipathi-
C 
Padakanukas or other personal gifts made to Mathadhipathi as head of 
institution-Managenient and adn1inistration of n1ath prope1ties-R.emoval of 
Mathadhipathi-Filling of temporary and pennanent vacancies in the office 
of mathadhipathi-Nomination of mathadhipathi-Power of Commissioner 
to frame scheme of administration of math-Held, right of mathadhipathi to 
administer and manage property endowed to math and 1ights of similar D 
character are legal rights-Mathadhipathi is neither hereditary t111stee, nor a 
t111stee as envisaged by s.2( 16) and s.2(29) but he is a tnLStee of math in 
relation to property of math or specific endowment attached to math-Matters 
relating to adniinistration of niath properties are not n1atters of religion but 
are secular activities though connected with religion enjoined on 
mahant-Mathadhipathi incuning disqualifications enumerated in clauses 
(d} to (i) of s.53 is liable to be removed-Suspension of a mathadhipathi is 
a necessa1y and reasonable pmt of procedure for removal of mathadhipathi-
Role of Commissioner in nomination of mathadhipathi under s.54 is mini-
mai-Power of Commissioner to frame scheme under s.55 is not abso/ut~ 
None of ss.50 to 55 offend Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution of India. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
E 
F 
Articles 25 and 26-Freedom to practice and propagate re/igion-
Freedom to manage religious affairs-Sections 50 to 55 of Andhra Pradesh G 
Charitable and Hindu Religious lllstitutions and Endowments Act, • 
1987-Held, are not violative of Articles 25 or 26-Administration and · 
management of math/propmies are secular activities-Fastening an obliga-
tion 011 Mathadhipathi to maintain accounts of Padakanukas and other 
personal gifts made to mathadhipathi does not amount to inteiference with 
religion. 
929 
H 
930 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The petitioners file<i the present writ petitions under Article 32 of 
B 
the Constitution challenging the Validity of Ss.SO to SO of the Andhra 
Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments 
Act, 1987. These provisions deal with maintaining regular accounts or 
receipts of Padakanukas and other gifts made to the Mathadhipathi as 
head of the math, removal of Mathadhipathi, qualifications of mathad-
hipathi filling of temporary and permanent vacancies in the office of 
mathadhipathi nomination of mathadhipathi and power of Commissioner 
to frame scheme of administration of the Math. Petitioners case was that 
the maths represented by them were not public endowments but were 
private trusts; the expenses for the maintenance of the maths and worship 
C in the temple were being carried on solely from the Padakanukas given by 
the devotees; mathadhipathi being the spiritual head to il.iport religious 
instructions and he not being a trustee, his appointment was purely a 
religious act and not a sec.ular act, nomination of mathadhipathi was 
based upon usage and customs of the respective maths; and therefore, the 
D provisions of Ss.SO to SS of the Act attempting to regulate these matters 
and vesting power in the Commissioner in respect of these matters 
amounted to interference with religious tenets of Hindu religion and were 
thus violative of Articles 2S and 26 of the Constitution of India. 
On behalf of the State, it was contended that provisions of Ss.SO to 
E SS of the Act regulate proper management and administration of the math, 
the receipt of income, manner of use and ac<Juntability of Padakanukas 
and other personal gifts made to the Mathadhipathi, the power to super-
vise and safeguard the interests of the maths being a secular function was 
entrusted by law to the Commissioner; the provisions were enacted to 
F avoid indelible effect on the administration of math properties and to 
safeguard the interest of maths which otherwise would get affected adver-
sely due to protracted litigation for years; as regards the nomination of 
Mathadhipathi, Agama Shastra Pandit Service Rules, 1987 provided 
guidance In that behalf and the Commissioner would receive advice of the 
Agam Shastra Pandit in the matters of religion, in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.