SHRI H.H. SUDHINDRA THIRTHA SWAMIAR, SENIOR SWAMIAR OF PUTHIGE MUTT AND ORS. Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE ten applications were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of appropriate Writs to prevent the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious Endowments from enforcing some of the provisions of the Madras. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was the validity of some of the amendments effected by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act XXVII of 1954 that was in issue.

(2.) THE Matadhipathis of all the eight Maths of Udipi, who together manage the affairs of the Sri Krishna Devara Math, Udipi, and conduct the worship therein by turns, filed W.P. No. 323 of 1955, in which were filed the affidavits and counter -affidavits which we had to consider in these proceedings. Each of the Matadhipathis also applied separately, each with reference to his own Math, raising the same issues as had been raised in W.P. No. 323 of 1955. Virtually similar reliefs were sought in W.P. No. 359 of 1955, filed by His Holiness Jagatguru Sri Sankaracharya Swamigal the Matadhipathi of the Math, Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam, held in the highest esteem and veneration by a very large section of the Hindus in the South.

(3.) EVEN at the outset we should like to emphasise that it is only in relation to the Maths and Matadhipathis that we propose to consider the validity of the impugned provisions of the Act. Possibly different considerations may apply to other religious institutions and the trustees thereof; e.g., private temples; public temples with trustees hereditary or otherwise and we express no opinion on that. We shall therefore confine ourselves to a consideration of Maths and Matadhipathis alone in this judgment. The challenge to the validity of many of the impugned provisions might have been avoided, had the Legislature itself kept in view the distinction between Matadhipathis and the trustees of other religious institutions and had enacted separate provisions for application to Maths and Matadhipathis. It is not necessary for us to traverse over again the ground covered by Shri Shirur Math v. Commissioner, H.R.E. Madras, (1952) 1 M.L.J. 557, where, after a review of the case -law, Satyanarayana Rao, J., pointed out at page 571: