SRI VENKATARAMANA DEVARU AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 895 · Decided: 08-11-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
SRI VENKATARAMANA DEVARU 
AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS 
(with connected petition) 
( s. R. DAS c. J., VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JAFER 
IMAM, A. K. SARKAR AND VIVIAN BOSE JJ.) 
895 
Temple Entry, Authorisation of-Validity of enactment 
-Denominational right, if subject to general right of the 
Hindu public-'Matters of religion', Meaning o)'-Madras 
Temple Entry Authorisation Act (V of 1947), ss. 2 (2), 3-
Constitution of India, Arts. 25(2) (b), 26(b); 
This was an appeal by the trustees of the ancient and 
.renowned temple of Sri Venkataramana of Moolky Petta, 
who were managing the temple on behalf of the Gowda 
Saraswath Brahmins in accordance with a Scheme framed 
in a suit under s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After 
the passing of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act 
(Madras V of 1947), which had for its object the removal 
of the disability of Harijans from entering into Hindu pub-
lic temples, the trustees made a representation to the 
Government that the temple was a private one, and, there-
fore, outside the operation of the Act. But the Govern-
ment did not accept that position and held that the act ap-
plied to the temple. Thereupon the trustees brought th! 
suit, out of which the appeal arises, for a declaration that 
the temple was not one as defined by s. 2 (2) of the Act but 
was a denominational one having been founded exclusively 
for the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins. It was contended 
that s. 3 of the Act was void as being repugnant to Art. 
26(b) of the Constitution which vouchsafed to a religious 
denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters 
of religion. The trial court found against the appellants. 
It held t)lat matters of religion did not include rituals and 
ceremonies. But on appeal the High Court while holding 
that the public were entitled to worship in the temple, 
passed a limited degree in favour of the appellants by re-
serving to the latter the right to exclude the general public 
during certain ceremonies in which the members of ~he 
denomination alone were entitled to participate. The 
question for decision was whether the rights of a religious 
denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of reli-
gion under Art. 26 (b) can be subjected to, and controlled 
by, a law protected by Art. 25 (2) (b) of the Constitution. 
Held, that the expression "religious institutions of a 
public character" occurring in Art. 25 (2) (b) of the Con-
stitution contemplates not merely temples dedicated to the 
114 
1957 
November &. 
896 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
1957 
public as a whole but also those founded for the benefit 
. 
-
of sections thereof and includes denominational temple• as 
Sri Venkataramana well. While Art. 25 (1) deals with the rights of individuals 
DevaruandOthcrs and Art. 26(b) with those of religious denominations, Art. 
Th Sv. 
if 
25 (2) covers a much wider ground and controls both. 
Myso:. .• ~"je/j1hm Article 26(b) must, therefore, be read subject to Art. 25(2) · 
(b) of the Constitution. 
Although the right to enter a temple for purposes of 
worship protected by Art. 25 (2) (b) must be construed 
liberally in favour of the public, that does not mean that 
that right is absolute and unlimited in character. It must 
necessarily be subject to such limitation or regulation as 
arises in the process of harmonising it with the right pro-
tected by Art. 26 (b). 
Where the denominational rights 
claimed are not such as can nullify or substantially reduce 
the right conferred by Art. 25 (2) (b), that Article should 
be so construed as to give effect to them, leaving the rights 
of the public in other respects unaffected. 
The expression 'matters of religion' occurring in Art. 
26 (b) of the Constitution includes practices which are re-
garded by the community as part of its religion and under 
the ceremonial Jaw pertaining to temples, who are entitled 
to enter into them for worship and where they are entitled 
to stand for worship and how the worship is to be conducted 
are all matters of religion. 
The 
Commissioner, 
Hindu 
Religious 
Endowments, 
Madras v. Sri Lakshimindra Tirtha Swamiar of Sri Shiru,. 
Mutt, (1954) S.C.R. 1005; Gopala Muppanar v. Subramania 
Aiyar, (1914) 27 M.L.J. 253 and Sankaralinga Nadan v. 
Raja Rajeswara Dorai, (1908) L.R. 35 I.A. 176, referred to. 
Held further, that it is well settled that where the 
original dedication is proved to have been for the benefit 
of a particular communit

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