Madras High Court (File)
The legal battle against the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR and CE) department was initiated by Thirukayilaya Parambarai Sri-La-Sri Sivaprakasa Desika Sathiyagnana Pandara Sannidhi Swamigal, the 103rd Madathipathi of Sengol Adheenam Math in Perungulam Village, Rivaikuntham Taluk, Tuticorin District. The Tamil Nadu government had assumed control in 1960, citing concerns about the alleged improper alienation of the mutt’s properties by its 101st pontiff.
The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein seeking cancellation of the scheme framed for administration of petitioner-Mutt dated 31.05.1960 in O.A.No.1 of 1960 and to permit the petitioner to have and hold the entire administration of the Mutt both the spiritual and secular.
Justice S Sounthar, in an 84-page order, highlighted the constitutional protection afforded to religious institutions under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. He emphasised the critical question of the state’s authority to interfere with the secular affairs of such institutions and the time limitations on such interventions.
The court specifically pointed out Section 65 of the HR&CE Act, 1959, which empowers the commissioner to constitute a body of persons to assist in administration but does not grant the authority to appoint a manager or executive officer for day-to-day affairs. Sections 58(2)(d) and 3(b) of the HR and CE Act, 1951, which had initially granted such powers, were struck down by the courts and subsequently deleted in the 1959 Act.
Justice Sounthar remarked that the commissioner’s order to continue administering the mutt’s secular affairs alongside its head was without jurisdiction and in clear violation of the current Act. He stressed the long history of the mutt, tracing its origins back several centuries.
The judge said, “The 101st Head of the Mutt, who abdicated his position, subsequently filed a suit in O.S.No.272 of 1977 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli seeking a declaration that he was both spiritual and secular head of the Sengole Adheenam Mutt. The said suit was filed mainly on the ground that Head of the Mutt had no power to resign the post and such resignation was not customary in the Mutt.
The writ petitioner, after assuming charge as 103 rd Head of the Mutt, made a representation to 1st respondent on 03.09.2016 saying “no Advisory Committee was appointed for the past 54 years, and therefore, the scheme has become redundant”.
The judge pointed out “”A close scanning of the above-referred decisions would make it clear that the position of a Head of the Mutt involves both religious duties and secular duties. As far as religious duties are concerned, as a religious superior, he has got absolute right to manage the religious affairs of the Mutt without interference by State. The said right is protected by Article 26(a) and (b) of the Indian Constitution, subject only to public order, morality, and health. Therefore, the Head of the Mutt enjoys full freedom in running the affairs of the Mutt as far as religious affairs are concerned, and if at all, the State can only interfere on limited grounds of public order, morality, and health…. , continuance of a manager by the first respondent to look after the secular affairs of a Mutt in the absence of any mismanagement would certainly amount to violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India”.
The judge said, “The impugned order is held to be violative of fundamental rights available to the petitioner under Article 26 (d) of the Constitution of India. It is repugnant to the present HR and CE Act, which does not contain a provision for the appointment of an officer while framing a scheme for Mutts… The Writ Petition stands Allowed by quashing the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, it is declared that scheme framed by 1st respondent became redundant on May 30, 1962, after the expiry of the term of office of First Advisory Committee constituted under the scheme. (b) The 1st respondent is directed to take necessary steps for handing over the secular affairs of Sengol Adheenam Mutt to the 103rd head of the mutt”. The judge directed HR and CE to take steps to hand over the affairs of the mutt to its 103rd head within 12 weeks
Concluding the judgment, Justice Sounthar declared the impugned order as violative of fundamental rights and repugnant to the current HR and CE Act. The court quashed the order and declared the scheme as redundant since May 30, 1962, after the Advisory Committee’s term expired. The commissioner was directed to hand over the secular affairs of Sengol Adheenam Mutt to its 103rd head, and the HR and CE departments were instructed to facilitate the transfer within 12 weeks.
This legal ruling not only safeguards the autonomy of religious institutions but also sets a precedent for the limitations on state interference in their affairs, reinforcing the constitutional protections granted to such institutions under Article 26.
Leave a Comment