RAJA BIRA KISHORE DEB HEREDITARY SUPERINTENDENT JAGANNATH TEMPLE P 0 AND DISTRICT PURI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on a certificate granted by the Orissa High Court raises the question of the constitutionality of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, No. XI of 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The challenge to the Act was made by the father of the present appellant by a writ petition filed in the High Court of Orissa. The appellant was substituted for his father on the death of the latter while the writ petition was pending in the High Court. The case put forward in the petition firstly was that the Shri Jagannath Temple (hereinafter referred to as the Temple) was the private property of the petitioner, Raja of Puri, and the Act, which deprived the appellant of his property was unconstitutional in view of Art. 19 of the Constitution. In the alternative it was submitted that the appellant had the sole right of superintendence and management of the Temple and that that right could not be taken away without payment of compensation, and the Act inasmuch as it took away that right without any compensation was hit by Art. 31 of the Constitution. It was further pleaded that the right of superintendence was property within the meaning of Art. 19(1) (f) and inasmuch as the appellant had been deprived of that property by the Act, it was an unreasonable provision which was not saved under Art. 19(5). The Act was further attacked on the ground that it was discriminatory and was therefore hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution, as the Temple had been singled out for special legislation, though there was a general law in force with respect to Hindu religious endowments, namely, the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act No. II of 1952. Reliance was placed on Arts. 26, 27 and 28 of the Constitution to invalidate the Act, though the appellant did not indicate in the petition how those Articles hit the Act. Lastly, it was urged that the utilisation of the Temple funds for purposes alien to the interest of the deity as proposed under the Act was illegal and ultra vires.

(2.) The petition was opposed on behalf of the State and it was urged that the Temple was not the private property of the appellant. The case of the State was that it was a public temple and the State always had the right to see that it was properly administered. Before the British conquered Orissa in 1803, the Temple had for a ling time been managed by Muslim Rulers directly, though through Hindu employees. After 1803, the Temple began to be managed directly by the British Government, though by Regulation IV of 1809 the management was made over to the Raja of Khurda (who is now know as the Raja of Puri), who was appointed as hereditary superintendent in view of his family's connection in the past with the Temple. Even so, whenever there was mismanagement in the Temple during the course of the last century and half, the Government always intervened and many a time administered the secular affairs of the Temple directly through one of its officers in whose favour the then Raja was made to execute a power of attorney divesting himself completely of all powers of management. The case of the State further was that in view of the reported mismanagement of the Temple, the State legislature passed the Puri Shri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, (No. XIV of 1952) for the appointment of a Special Officer for the preparation of a record pertaining to the rights and duties of different sevaks and pujaris and such other persons connected with the seva, puja or management of the Temple and its endowments in order to put the administration of the Temple on a suitable basis. A Special Officer was accordingly appointed who submitted his report on March 15, 1954, which disclosed serious mismanagement of the affairs of the Temple and in consequence the Act was passed in 1955. The State contended that the Act was perfectly valid and constitutional and did not offend any constitutional provision.

(3.) When the matter came to be argued before the High Court, the appellant gave up the plea that the Temple was his private property and it was conceded that it was a public temple, the properties of which were the properties of the deity and not the private properties of the Raja of Puri. In view of this concession, the attack n the constitutionality of the Act was based mainly on the ground that it took away the Raja's perquisites which had been found to belong to him in the record of right prepared under the Act of 1952. It may be mentioned that the Raja of Puri had two-fold connection with the Temple. In the first place the Raja is the adya sevak, i.e., the chief servant of the Temple and in that capacity he has certain rights and privileges. In addition to that, he was the sole superintendent of the Temple and was in-charge of the management of the secular affair of the Temple. The main contention of the appellant before the High Court was that the Act not only took away the management of the secular affairs of the Temple from the appellant but also interfered with his rights as adya sevak and was therefore unconstitutional. The High Court repelled all the submissions on behalf of the appellant and held that the Act was valid and constitutional except for one provision contained in S. 28(2)(f) thereof. The High Court therefore struck down that provision and upheld the constitutionality of the rest of the Act. Thereupon the appellant applied for a certificate which was granted; and that is how the appeal has come up before us.