TILKAYAT SHRI GOVINDLALJI MAHARAJ versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 1 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 21-01-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 13 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

l S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
561 
to-an order for possession of the premises in ques-
tion. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed 
with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
TILKAYAT SHRI GOVINDLALJI MAHARAJ 
v. 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, c. ]., P. B. GAJF.NDRAGADKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
j. C. SHAH, jj.) 
Nnthdwara Ttmple-I'ril'Gle or public t•mple-Te<l&-
Yalidity of enactment pro,.iding for proper arlministration of 
temple-Constitutfo'Jl,ality-~\'athdu1ara Tf'm7J/e Act, 1959 (Raja.~­
than .13 of 19-W) ss. 2 (viii), .1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 16, 21, 22, 27, 
28, .JO, J:i, Jr;, 37-Consfitution of India, Art•. U, 19 (1) (/), 
"5 ''G 
·1 I ( '') 
.. ' - ) ' . 
,_ . 
The history of the Nathdwara Temple in the District of 
Udaipur showed that Vallabha, who was the founder of the 
dcnominati0n known as Pushtimargiya Vaishnava Sampradaya, 
installed the idol of Srimthji in a temple and that later on his 
descendants built the Nathdwara Temple in I 761. The reli-
gious rcputati6n of the temple grew i11 importance and several 
grants were made and thousands of devotees visiting the temple 
made ofl'erings to the temple. The succession to the Gaddi of 
the 'filkayat received recognition from the Rulc::rs ofMewar, 
but on seve1al occasions the Rulc::rs interfered whenever it was 
found that the affairs of the temple were not managed pre perly. 
In 1934 a Firman was issued by the Ucfaipur Darbar, by which, 
inter alia, it was declared that according to the law of Udai .. 
pur all the property dedicated or presented to or otherwise 
coming to the Deity Shrinathji was property of the shrine, that 
the Tilkayat Maharaj for the time being was merely a custo-
dian, Manager and Trustee of the said property and that the 
Udaipur Darbar had absolute right to supervise 
that thr. 
1963 
Krishanl'I lshwarlnl 
Dtsai 
v. 
Bai Vijkor 
Gujendrai.Okar J. 
196.1 
Ja,.uary, 2J. 
1963 
Ti/l;"J4l 
Slrn Gocin•lalji 
Mohiir"j 
v. 
't•te ef Rcja.sthan 
562 SUPREME COt]RT REPORTS (1964] VOL. 
property dedicated to the shrine was usecl for the legitimate 
purposes of the shrine. The m1n1gement of the affairs by the 
appellant Tilkayat was not successful and it became necessary 
that a scheme should be framed for the management of the 
Temple. 
On February 6, J 9j9, the Governor of Rajas than 
promulgated an Ordinance, which was in due course replaced 
by the Nathdwara Temple /\cl, J 9j9, The appellant challen-
ged the validitv of the Act on the grounds, inter alia, that the 
idol of Shrinathji in the Nathd-wara Temple and all the pro-
perty pertainin'?' to it were his private properties and, as such, 
the State Le~islature was not competent to pass the. Act, that 
even if the ~athdwara Temple was held to be a public temple, 
he as Mahant or Shebait had a beneficial interest in the office of 
the high priest as well as the properties of the temple and thaf 
on that footing, his rights •:nder Aris. 14, 19 (I) (f) and 31 (2} 
of the Constitution of India had heen contravened by the Act. 
It was also urged that the provisions of the Act infringed the 
fundamental ·rights guar.lnteed to the Denomination under 
Aris. 55 (I) and 26 
(b) and (c) of the Constitution. The 
question was also raised as to whether the tenel5 of the Vall-
.abha denomination and its religious practices required that the 
worship by the devotees should be performed at the private 
temple and so the existence of public temples was inconsistent 
with the said tenets and practices. 
Hdd, (I) that neither that tenet• nor the religious prac-
tices uf the V41labha school necessarily postulate that the 
followers of the school must worship in a private temple. 
(2) that in view of the documentary evidence in the case 
it could not be held that the temple was built by the Ti!kayat of 
the dJ.y as hh private temple or that it still coatinues to havc·thc 
character of a private temple; that though from the outside 
it had the appearance of a liaveli, the majestic 
st~ucture inside 
was cohsistcnt "•ith the dignity of the idol and with the charac-
ter of the temple as a public temple. 
(3) that an ausolule mnnarch was the fountain-head of 
all Jegislativo, executive and judicial p:>wcrs, that it was of the 
very essence of sovereignty which vested in him that he could 
supervise and control the administration o~ public charity, and 
that this principle applied as much to Hindu m:1narchs as to 
any other absolute mo11arch. 
Any order i5sued by such a Ruler 
wo

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