LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seek to question the vires of Sections 2 (22), 2 (27) and Sections 47 to 55 in Chapter V of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987) (30 of 1987) (for short, "the Act"). But at the time of hearing Shri K. Parasaran, their learned senior counsel, restricted his arguments to the validity of Sections 50 to 55. The petitioner in the first writ petition is Peetadhipati of the institution known as "Mumukshu Jana Maha Peetham" (for short, 'Peetham') in Peda Muktevi village of Movva Mandal in Krishna District of Andhra Pradesh. It was averred therein that the Peetham was founded by one Seetharama Yetendrulu an advocate in the year 1938 and he became a sanyasi. His main philosophy was equality and Universality of all religious faiths, good character, gratuitous conduct and devotion to God, far more important than mere rituals. He formed Mumukshu Jana Samajam in 1950. He published several books under that banner. He was running a Telugu magazine by name Mumukshuvu. He started school for the children. He was managing a temple of Lakshmipati Swamy. The devotees collected funds for all those projects by voluntary donation and the amount given through bhiksha (seeking alms) He donated his ancestral house and purchased 4 acres of land with the aid of padakanukas (personal gifts) He died in 1972 and nominated one of his disciples as successor and thereafter with the aid of padakanukas from thousands of disciplines temples were constructed by the first petitioner and were being managed with the Padakanuk as given by the devotees. It is not a public endowment but a private trust. The expenses for the maintenance of math and worship in the temple are being carried on solely from the Padakanukas given by the devotees due to reverence which the disciples gave to the mathadhipati. It is, therefore, clear that the above provisions are ultra vires, in their application to the petitioner math. Similar contentions have been raised in all other writ petitions. By their very admission, the petitioner's institution is a math and being managed from personal gifts etc. made by devotees and collected by disciples.

(2.) Shri Parasaran, the learned senior counsel, contended that Section 48 of the Act excludes application of Sections 18 to 22 and 28 of Chapter III to maths. The other provisions in Chapter III by implication would apply to the math for the reason that they are not excluded. Sections 34 and 35, therefore, by implication stand attracted to the mathadhipati irrespective of the fact whether mathadipati falls under the definition of "hereditary trustee" or not.

(3.) Mathadhipati is the spiritual head to impart religious instructions. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a hereditary trustee nor he be held to hold any office of service or a post by whatever name it is called. Appointment of a mathadhipati is not a secular act. Mathadhipati, indisputably not being a trustee, his appointment is purely a religious act. The nomination of the Mathadhipati is based upon usage and custom of the math. It is a concept appertaining to Hindu religious endowment. It is sui generis. One cannot put it in a strait-jacket by any jurisprudential concept. Section 54 imposes recognition of the nomination of a mathadhipati by the Commissioner, an officer of the Government, who does not have knowledge of usages or practices prevalent in the relevant math. Imposition of such conditions is an interference with freedom of religion and power to manage religious and power to manage religious affairs. Removal of Mahant under Section 51. Filling up of vacancies under Section 53, recognition of nomination of Mahant under Section 54 and powers to frame a scheme for the management of math under Section 55 are ultra vires of Articles 25(1) and 26(b) of the Constitution. The learned counsel elaborated the contentions arguing that the procedure for nomination of the mathadhipati, convening of a meeting with mathadipatis of other maths of similar Samparadayams as provided under Section 54(2) of the Act, are repugnant to the usage and Sampardayams of the same math. Each math is governed by its own usage and Sampardayams No. two maths can be held to be governed by the same set of usages and Sampardayams unless one is specific endowment or subordinate of the main math. Though several math may propagate the same religious philosophy, each math will have its own distinct and different usage or Sampardayams. Even a math propagating the tenets of religious philosophy of Adishankracharya are having different Samparadayams. Similarly, each math following and propagating the dwaita philosophy of Madhwacharya will have its own Sampardayam. Maths propagating Vashisthadwaita philosophy of Shriramanujacharya have their own Sampardaysms. Therefore, the Act attempting to regulate nomination of a mathadhipati at the recommendation of other mathadhipathis and its acceptance by the Commissioner, or filing up similarly of temporary vacancies in the office of mathadhipati, are but naked interference with religious tents of Hindu religion.