Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jagarlamudi Venkata Subbarao, vs The State Of Ap on 21 August, 2019
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
****
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.59 OF 2019
Between:
Jagarlamudi Venkata Subbarao
... Petitioner
And
State of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others
... Respondents.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 21.08.2019
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
2 HACJ & MSM,J
WP(PIL)_59_ 2019
* THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
+ WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.59 of 2019
% 21.08.2019
# Jagarlamudi Venkata Subbarao
....Petitioner
v.
$ State of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Umesh Chandra P.V.G.
Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader for
Endowments
Standing Counsel for TTD
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
(1) AIR 1995 SC 2001
(2) AIR 1954 SC 282
(3) 2000 (2) ALD Cri 686
(4) AIR 1996 SC 1414
(5) AIR 1958 SC 255
(6) 2018 (8) SCJ 609
(7) AIR 1996 SC 1023
(8) (1997) 6 SCC 1
(9) AIR 1951 SC 318
(10) 1955 (1) SCR 1045
(11) AIR 1973 AP 325
(12) AIR 1964 SC 1623
(13) [1959]1 SCR 279
(14) AIR 1963 SC 268
(15) (1952) Cr LJ 1526
(16) (1994) Cr LJ 1870
3 HACJ & MSM,J
WP(PIL)_59_ 2019
(17) AIR 1950 SC 124
(18) (1953) Cr LJ 1786
(19) (1995) Cr LJ 307
(20) AIR 1954 SC 282
(21) [1972] 3 SCR 815
(22) AIR 1962 SC 853
(23) [1954] 1 SCR 1046
(24) [1962] 1 SCR 383
4 HACJ & MSM,J
WP(PIL)_59_ 2019
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.59 OF 2019
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy) One Jagarlamudi Venkata Subbarao, resident of H.No.3-9, Pamidipadu Post, Pamidi Padu, Prakasam District, filed this pro bono publico/Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in granting Very Important Person Break Darshanam to a specific category of devotees as illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and ultra vires to Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the Lord Venkateshwara Temple in Tirumala is administered by an institution constituted under Section 96 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "the Act") known as Tirumala Tirupathi Devesthanams (for short "TTD"). Under the garb of sanction gathered under resolutions passed by the TTD or under any other provisions of law purportedly to prove better management and to ensure security requirements for a specific section of devotees, the State Government of Andhra Pradesh in concert with the TTD has virtually usurped the fundamental religious rights of devotees.
It is further alleged that the action of the respondents in categorization of people on the basis of position an individual holds in the society or based on individual's influence, is a categorical travesty of constitutional safeguards, abuse of legal process, statutory power and vitiated by mala fide and extraneous 5 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 considerations as every devotee has a fundamental right to worship deity equally.
It is averred that respondent No.3 - Temple in permitting VIP Break Darshanam to specific sections of devotees based on their status and such a Darshanam is further categorized into List-1, List- 2 and List-3 (will be referred to as L 1, L 2 and L 3 for the sake of convenience), which is not based on any procedure under the Act. Hence, pleaded that the executive body is not entitled to make such categorization while exercising a power which is not conferred on them. Therefore, it is urged that categorization of devotees as L 1, L 2, and L 3 is arbitrary. It is also contended that categorization of pilgrims of a section as L 1, L 2 and L 3 has become a breeding ground for unlawful activities in Tirumala. There is clear distinction the way these L 1, L 2, L 3 and other general category devotees worship the deity of Lord Venkateshwara in Tirumala. All the devotees who are categorized as L 1 category, can stay close to the deity in the sanctum sanctorum and special prayers and Harati would be offered to them at the instance of the TTD Management. All the devotees who are categorized under L 2 category can also stay close to the deity but no special prayers or Harati will be offered to them inside the sanctum sanctorum, while the devotees who are categorized under L 3 Category can worship the deity from a reasonable distance, farther than L 1 and L 2 devotees with no special prayers or Harati being offered to them. All other devotees who fall under the ambit of general category must worship the deity from a farther distance than L1, L2 and L3 and they would be allowed to be in the sanctum sanctorum for few seconds only.
6 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 It is urged that the Constitution of India does not envisage a situation whereby the above mentioned categorization of devotees can be granted a privilege merely because of their position in the society and therefore such a categorization is grossly unconstitutional. The Constitution also does not envisage a situation of Freedom to Manage religious affairs to any religious denomination and Article 26 (b) could be extended to an extent of curtailing the Right to Worship of an individual guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner would further contend that categorization which is done at the instance of the State Government and TTD, a statutory body constituted under the Act, is a blatant violation of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India since everyone is equal before law and the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India prohibition, discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Thus, as can be seen from such categorization, ordinary devotees are deprived of their right when compared to others on the grounds of crowd management or security concerns is merely a pretext and has no legal or theological sanctity and is categorical infringement of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Such a categorization is against the principle of equality before law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, Article 25 of the Constitution of India deals with freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion, but it is always subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and 7 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 propagate religion and nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice.
Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the material allegations inter alia contending that the petitioner invented a theory of mala fide in categorization of devotees based on their status, for filing of this petition and the alleged mala fides are hereby denied.
The petitioner made a Sisyphean task to prejudice the Court with his hyperbolic statements which are not supported by any feasible or congenial evidence. The petitioner approached the Court with malus animus to captivate the attention of the public at large by filing the present PIL and to make the issue a cause Celebre. Suffice it to say, the petitioner has approached the Court not with an intention to agitate a public cause but only to propagate himself for personal gain and benefit. It is urged that the petitioner is not a public-spirited personality, but approached the Court with oblique motive to publicize the litigation which he has filed in the form of PIL and accordingly made wild, callous and reckless statements in the social and also in the print media.
One of the news items is annexed to the counter establishes the motive and objective of the petitioner, which is apparently and patently not aboveboard. As the petitioner has sufficiently misused the litigation, it is urged that the writ petition has to be dismissed at the threshold. The Apex Court repeatedly observed that the Judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of Public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and publicity 8 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 seeking is lurking. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Further, the Courts should not encourage unscrupulous and undesirable Public Interest Litigation to save the valuable and precious time of the Courts as well as to preserve the faith of the public in the justice delivery system and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
It is specifically contended that Tirumala Temple is a globally indentified religious denomination and attracts myriad of devotees everyday, which number may struck between 50,000 to 90,000 pilgrims per day. However, the TTD with its State of Art methods and procedures in managing the inflow of the devotees and providing/arranging darshan to everybody who come from long distances apart from providing comfortable stay. The respondent No.3 is making all required arrangements for the devotees visiting the Temple with great piety and devotion. In fact, managing the long Queues and providing best possible darshan to all the devotees visiting Tirumala is not an easy task but the TTD with lot of sincerity, commitment and adoration and respecting the sentiments of the devotees has been taking all necessary steps which are essential for them. As the inflow of the pilgrims is increasing day by day, the TTD, with an intention to arrange darshan to more number of people at the earliest possible, introduced the system of "Mahalagu Darshan" so as to avoid waiting in Queue complexes for hours and days together. The system of "Mahalagu" is sine quo non to tolerate the pilgrims inflow and to arrange immediate darshan on the same day to them. The Sarvadarshanam will be continued everyday till midnight. In fact, most of the darshan' time in the day is being 9 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 allocated to the general public only, as TTD feels that general public are paramount and providing darshan to them is a privilege. Further, the TTD provides priority darshan to the old age people, the mothers carrying infants, physically challenged persons etc., to the extent possible.
It is further pleaded that due to security reasons, the respondent No.3 cannot and should not allow the VIPs and VVIPs to go along with the general public for darshan. By taking all the above factors into consideration, the respondent No.3 temple is arranging separate darshan facility to VIPs and VVIPs, segregating them from general public. The classification made by the 3rd respondent segregating the VIPs and VVIPs from general public and to arrange a separate darshan to them is a reasonable classification which is permissible under the Constitution of India. As a matter of fact, such a reasonable classification being adopted by the TTD is to provide separate darshan to the VVIPs and VIPs by balancing with the paramount interest of the general public/pilgrims, cannot be construed as violative of right to worship. The petitioner missed to understand that there is no classification or discrimination or differentiation in providing Sarvadarshanam among the general public. Except VIPs and VVIPs, the rest of the general public are being provided with similar darshan in the Tirumala Temple excluding the pilgrims/devotees who have been allocated Arjitha Seva. It is also stated that a reasonable time slot is earmarked for VIPs and VVIPs without causing inconvenience to the general pilgrims. In fact, the Sarvadarshanam will be stopped for offering Nivedana to the Deity in the Sanctum Sanctorum during morning, afternoon and in the evening times. The VIPs and VVIPs will be 10 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 allowed to have darshan immediately after completion of Nivedana in the morning hours only. Depending upon the inflow of the VIPs, the time allotted for their darshan may not exceed more than 3 hours per day. In view of the same, it is pleaded that there is no conflict between time allotted for darshans of VIPs and general public. Apart from that, the respondent No.3 and its officers taking decisions depending upon the inflow of the pilgrims to cancel or restrict the VIP Break Darshan during rush season and even during the weekdays. In view of the same, the darshan being provided to VIPs and VVIPs cannot be overlapped with the Sarva Darshanam availed by the other pilgrims.
Respondent No.3 further specifically contended that TTD administration has taken a decision for recalling the system of categorization of VIP darshan as L 1, L 2 and L 3 and reintroduce the old system of VIP Break Darshan. Though a decision to that extent is taken by the respondent No.3, the same is yet to be placed before the Board of Trustees which will be after constitution of the new Board. Thus, categorization of L 1, L 2 and L 3 Darshanams is cancelled subject to decision taken by the Board to be constituted by the Government.
It is further stated that one K.V.Narahari Babu, Tiruchanoor earlier filed W.P.No.3877 of 2008 as public interest litigation seeking identical relief and the same was dismissed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the issue is no more Res integra and on this score also the petition is liable to be dismissed.
The Executive Officer of the TTD is conferred with powers to regulate the darshan under Rule 222 of TTD Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.311 dt.9.4.1990. By exercising the power under Rule 222, 11 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 depending upon the inflow of the pilgrims, the EO can regulate the darshan of the VIPs and the general public and strike a balance between the two. As the inflow of the pilgrims has been increasing day by day and the same crosses 70,000 per day (in average), due to paucity of time, all the pilgrims will be provided with Mahalaghu darshan only. It is relevant to state here that even if any VIP or VVIP visits the temple during the Sarva Darshanam timings, they will also be taken to Mahalaghu darshan without causing any obstruction to the general public. Under those circumstances, the alleged discrimination of various devotees like VVIP and VIP from ordinary devotees does not amount to violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14, 25 and 26 of Constitution of India. Respondent No.3 also filed copy of order in W.P.No. 3877 of 2008 dated 10.12.2008 and the resolution passed by the TTD to show that there is a custom prevailing in the temple since long time to provide Darshanam to important persons, Rajas, Samsthanadisulu and Matam Sanyasis and hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Placing reliance on the Judgments of Apex Court in "P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma1" "The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt2" "Lily Thomas v. Union of India3" "Sri Lakshmana Yatendrulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh4" "Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore5"
"Indian Young Lawyers Association and others v. The State of Kerala6" and the principles laid down therein, Sri Umesh Chandra 1 AIR 1995 SC 2001 2 AIR 1954 SC 282 3 2000 (2) ALD Cri 686 4 AIR 1996 SC 1414 5 AIR 1958 SC 255 6 2018 (8) SCJ 609
12 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 P.V.G., learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that depriving ordinary devotees to enjoy the fundamental right guaranteed under the constitution is a serious illegality. It is also contended that Freedom of Religion and the limitations on the States' power to interfere with such rights has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in several judgments (referred supra), and the cumulative effect of the principles laid down in the above judgments is that no privilege can be conferred on any individual in respect of religious practices and any such condition, if imposed, restricting the citizens from enjoying their right to worship God, amounts to infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is also contended that devotees visiting temples are equal before law and they cannot be categorized based on their status in the society. Imposition of such restriction is infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and prayed to issue Writ of Mandamus as stated supra. On the basis of principles laid down in the above judgments, he contends that discrimination of ordinary devotees from VIPs and VVIPs is infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14, 25 and 26 of Constitution of India and requested to issue Writ of Mandamus as stated supra.
Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel, on behalf of Sri Dr.Majji Suri Babu, learned Standing Counsel for TTD, contends that the practice of offering temple honours to the VVIPs and VIPs, Kings and Peetadhipathis (Pontiffs) is prevailing since Fasli 1200 which is equivalent to 1790 Gregorian calendar year. Such a practice which is prevailing since times immemorial became the custom of the temple and such custom is not inconsistent with the constitutional 13 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 provisions. Based on such a custom, the temple is extending honours to VVIPs and VIPs etc. It is also contended that as per Section 97 of the Act, the Board shall in addition to the powers conferred and functions entrusted to it by the Act, exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed in regard to matters of policy and general superintendence, and review in relation to the Administration of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams having due regard to public interest and the services and amenities to be provided to and welfare safety measures to be undertaken for the pilgrims, devotees and worshippers visiting Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams. Therefore, the same does not amount to discrimination of any individual devotees from other devotees or does it amount to depriving any individual of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and hence seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
Considering the rival contentions made and after perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are:
(1) Whether permitting Break Darshanam to VVIPs and VIPs in respondent No.3 - temple amounts to discrimination and infringement of right of equality guaranteed under Article
14 of the Constitution of India?
(2) Whether permitting Break Darshanam to VVIPs and VIPs in respondent No.3 - temple, causing some delay in darshnam to general public, would amount to violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of Constitution of India?
14 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 (3) If point Nos.1 and 2 are decided in affirmative, whether the procedure adopted by respondent No.3 in permitting direct entry into the temple or through compartments or Mahadwara to few VVIPs and VIPs is liable to be set aside? P O I N T No.1:
The bone of contention of the petitioner is three fold. The first contention is the treatment given to general public differentially from the VVIPs and VIPs to enter into the temple is discriminative and violative of the fundamental right of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of the India.
Second contention is that the general public are being deprived to have Darshanam of Lord Venkateswara Swamy even after waiting for more than 24 hours in long queue, whereas some of the VVIPs and VIPs are being permitted direct entry into the temple through Mahadwara and some of the VIPs enter the temple through compartments, thereby depriving the general public to worship deity in the manner they intend is nothing but infringing the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of Constitution of India.
Third contention is that the categorization of VIPs into L 1, L 2 and L 3 is violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 25 of Constitution of India.
As stated above, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to causing inconvenience to the general pilgrims on account of permitting direct entry to VVIPs and VIPs either through Mahadwara or through compartments amounts to differential treatment violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 In view of this contention, it is appropriate to advert to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Article 14 of the Constitution of the India deals with fundamental right of equality before law. According to it the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Since social justice is one of the sub-divisions of the concept of justice. It is concerned with the distribution of benefits and burdens throughout a society as it results from social institutions: property systems, public organizations, etc. There are three criteria to judge the basis of distribution, namely, rights, deserts or need. These three criteria can be put under two concepts of equality: "formal equality"
and "proportional equality". There is a difference between formal equality and egalitarian equality. "Formal equality" means that law treats everyone equal and does not favour anyone either because he belongs to the advantaged section of the society or to the disadvantaged section of the society. Concept of "proportional equality" expects the States to take affirmative action in favour of disadvantaged sections of the society within the framework of liberal democracy. Proportional equality "in fact" whereas formal equality is equality "in law". Egalitarian equality is proportional equality. Therefore, the petitioner claims formal equality along with VVIPs and VIPs, general devotees. In other words, according to him segregating general devotees from VVIPs and VIPs amounts to discrimination.
There are certain limitations to apply the doctrine of 'equal protection.' In the present case, respondent No.3 is a public temple permitting VVIPs and VIPs to the temple either through Mahadwara
16 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 or through compartment lines, and it is based on administration of temples. The respondent No.3 - temple is governed chapter XIV commencing from Section 95 onwards, of the Act.
As per section 97 of the Act substituted by Act 26 of 1990, with effect from 21.01.1991, the Board shall in addition to the powers conferred and functions entrusted to it by the Act, exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed in regard to matters of policy and general superintendence and review in relation to the Administration of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams having due regard to public interest and the services and amenities to be provided to and welfare safety measures to be undertaken for the pilgrims, devotees and worshippers visiting Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams. This provision enables the Board to take necessary steps for general superintendence and review the norms of administration of TTD, keeping in mind public interest, services and amenities to be provided to and the welfare safety measures to be undertaken for the pilgrims etc. Thus, TTD board is competent to take decision with regard to administration of TTD subject to conditions contained under Section 97 of the Act.
When the Board authorized to review its administration, the Board is competent to formulate certain guidelines for providing Darshanam to various persons including VVIPs and VIPS and other general public, who visit temple. At the same time, Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947, which came into effect from 13.05.1947 deals with entry of various devotees to enter into temple and powers of Trust Board etc. The said Act is enacted to authorize entry into Hindu temples in the Andhra Area of 17 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 the State of Andhra Pradesh and the offer of worship therein by all classes of Hindus. Whereas it is the policy of the State Government to remove the disabilities imposed on certain classes of Hindus against entry into Hindu temples in the State; whereas the State Government are satisfied, from the rapidity with which, under pressure of Hindu public opinion, a number of temples have been thrown open to certain classes of Hindus in recent months, under the provisions of the Madras Temple Entry Authorization and Indemnity Act, 1939 that the time has now arrived for throwing open to all classes of Hindus every Hindu temple in the State and the State Government considered that the provisions of the said Act are inadequate for the early and complete implementation of the policy of the State Government, enacted the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947. Thus, the object of the Act is to authorize entry into Hindu Temples in the Andhra Area of the State of Andhra Pradesh since the earlier enactment i.e. the Madras Temple Entry Authorization and Indemnity Act, 1939 did not serve the purpose.
Section 2 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947 defined temple and it means a place, by whatever name known, which is dedicated to or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship, and includes subsidiary shrines and mantapams attached to such place. Therefore, TTD herein is a temple as defined under Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the said Act.
Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947 conferred power on trustees to make 18 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 regulations for the maintenance of order and decorum and the due performance of rites and ceremonies in temples. It is apposite to extract the said provision for better appreciation, accordingly it is extracted hereunder.
"The trustee or other authority in charge of a temple shall have power, subject to the control of the State Government and to any rules which may be made by them, to make regulations for the maintenance of order and decorum in the temple and the due observance of the religious rites and ceremonies performed in the temple, but such regulations shall not discriminate in any way against any Hindu on the ground that he belongs to a particular caste or sect."
Thus, from a bare reading of Section 4, it is clear that power is conferred on the authorities to make certain regulations for the maintenance of order and decorum in the temple and the due observance of the religious rites and ceremonies performed in the temple, but such regulations shall not discriminate in any way against any Hindu on the ground that he belongs to a particular caste or sect.
Section 3 deals with right of all classes of Hindus to enter and offer worship in temples, which is as follows:
"Section 3: Right of all classes of Hindus to enter and offer worship in temples (1) Notwithstanding any law, custom or usage to contrary, every Hindu irrespective of the caste or sect to which he belongs shall be entitled to enter any Hindu temple and offer worship therein in the same manner and to the same extent as Hindus in general or any section of Hindus: and no Hindu shall, by reason only of such entry or worship whether before or after the commencement of this Act, be deemed to have committed any actionable wrong or offence or be sued or prosecuted therefor.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision it is hereby declared that the right conferred by sub-section (1) shall include the following rights, if, and to the extent to which, they are enjoyed by Hindus in general, or any section of Hindus:-
19 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019
(a) the right to bathe in, or use the waters of, any sacred tank, well, spring or water-course appurtenant to the temple, whether situated within or outside the precincts thereof;
(b) the right of passage over any sacred place, including a hill or hillock or a road, street or pathway, which is requisite for obtaining access to the temple."
Thus, as per Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947, every Hindu is entitled to enter into the temple and worship deity in the temple and no Hindu shall be discriminated on the ground of caste or sect to enter into the temple including use of waters of any sacred tank, well, spring or water-course appurtenant to the temple etc. A reading of Section 97 of the Act makes it clear that the TTD board is conferred with power to review the administration keeping in mind public interest, services and amenities to be provided to and welfare safety measures to be undertaken for the pilgrims etc. Similarly, Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947, permits the Trust Board of temple to pass regulations for the maintenance of order and decorum and the due performance of rites and ceremonies in temples. Thus, the TTD Board or a Trust Board of any temple, is competent to take necessary decision to regulate entry into the temple while maintaining the decorum of the temple keeping in mind the social security to the pilgrims, worshippers etc. Coming to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, right to equality is recognized as fundamental right, but it is subject to certain limitations. The principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application for all persons who are not 20 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position, as the varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment. It would be inexpedient and incorrect to think that all laws have to be made uniformly applicable to all people in one go. The mischief or defect which is most acute can be remedied by process of law at stages. Hence, the Act singling out the religious and charitable institutions and endowments of Hindu religion, which is the major religion of the country, leaving out such institutions and endowments of other religions for the purpose of regulating their administration is not violative of Articles 14, 15 (1) and 25 of the Constitution of India. (Vide: Pannalal Bansilal Pitti v. State of A.P.7") The principle does not take away from the State the power of classifying persons for legitimate purposes. The legislature is competent to exercise its discretion and make classification (Vide:
"Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India8". Differential treatment does not per se constitute violation of Article 14. It denies equal protection only when there is no reasonable basis for the differentiation. If a law deals equally with members of a well-defined class, it is not obnoxious and it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that it has no application to other persons (Vide: "State of Bombay v. Balsara F.N.9"
Reasonableness for such distinction or classification of different persons depends upon various factors and they vary from group to group or person to person and what classification is reasonable and what is not reasonable depends upon the facts of 7 AIR 1996 SC 1023 8 (1997) 6 SCC 1 9 AIR 1951 SC 318 21 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 each case. For the purpose of application of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, laws made by different Legislatures cannot be taken together for the purpose of comparison or contract to show that the provisions of the one are discriminatory when read with the provisions of the other. Each law must be dealt with specifically. When the same Legislature enacts a number of connected laws, their combined operation may be taken into consideration for determining whether the provisions of any one of them are discriminatory. But the same process cannot be applied where similar laws on the same subject are enacted by different Legislatures. To treat the classification as permissible classification or reasonable classification, it must pass the test satisfying two conditions (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. (Vide: Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar10") Classification must have a reasonable basis. But it is not possible to exhaust the circumstances or criteria which may afford a reasonable basis for classification in all cases. It depends on the objects of the legislation in view and whatever has a reasonable relation to the object or purpose of the legislation is a reasonable basis for classification of the object coming under the purview of the enactment. Thus
(a) the basis of classification may be geographical provided there is a nexus between the territorial basis of the 10 1955 (1) SCR 1045 22 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 classification and the object sought to be achieved by the Act
(b) The justification for classification may be historical.
(c) The classification may be according to difference in time .
(d) Age may form a rational basis in relation to the object of particular subjects of legislation. Thus persons who have not attained majority may be incapacitated from entering into contracts.
(e) The classification may be based on the difference in the nature of the persons, trade, calling or occupation, which is sought to be regulated by the legislation e.g. admission to an educational institution.
(f) Limiting the benefit of exemption on the basis of old and new industrial units by fixing a cut-off date has good reasons.
(g) Classification should be based upon empirical study or survey conducted by the State. It should be based on scientific study and collection of relevant data. Therefore, while considering any rule or provision, the Court must keep in mind whether there is any basis for reasonable classification.
Turning to the facts of the present case, the main grievance of the petitioner is that VVIPs and VIPs are being treated differently from the ordinary pilgrims, who visit temple to offer worship or prayers to Lord Venkateswara Swamy, it amounts to discrimination according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The temple is very old temple and even before the Act came into force the respondent No.3 - temple is in existence and the Board used to function during 23 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 Fasli 1200 - 1250 "Dittam" published by TTD Trust Board. The said resolution was passed by the Trust Board during those Fasli Years permitting certain privileges to VVIPs and VIPs, who visit temple of Lord Venkateswara Swamy at Tirumala. Thus, the practice of offering special treatment to certain persons is in vogue since Fasli 1200 - 1250 equivalent to 1790-1840 as per Gregorian Calendar. Therefore, it is clear from the Dittam, that such differential treatment is permitted based on status of individual. The resolution has the trappings of custom, prevailing since 1790 onwards and the usage is ancient, continuing, but in different nomenclature. For the purpose of deciding the controversy before this Court, it is apposite to extract hereunder both Telugu and translated versions of "Dittam". 24 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 25 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 26 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS DITTAM (Phasali from 1200 to 1250) Sri A.V. Srinivasacharya's Research from Sri Venkateswara Oriental Research Book Stall Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam From the Board of Trustees Announced by Executive Officer, Sri P.S. Rajagopalaraju, B.A.B.L., 1976 19TH DITTAM THE HONOURS OF 'ISTAKABAL' (TEMPLE HONOURS) BEING GIVEN TO THE HEADS OF GOVERNMENT, LIKE THE EXCELLENCIES, KINGS, PONTIFFS OF DIFFERENT MUTTS, WHEN THEY VISIT TIRUMALA, TIRUPATI The honour given at Tirupati to the Heads of court yards (Samsthanadipathies), Pontiffs of different mutts, Acharya purushas before their visit to Tirumala.
Those who are coming from western, southern side from Ammalagunta, like wise from east and north side upto Thathayyagunta 'ISTAKABAL' (Temple Honours) such as Lord'sPrasadam, Vada - 1, Thomala - 1in a procession with Elephant, Horse, Umbrella along with ceremonial drum beats either by Thahasildhar or Parupattedar will be presented at their stay. When they i.e., Kings, Heads of States want to have darshan of Sri Govindarajaswamy they would be given theertha, Aalavattam, sandal etc. in honour.
27 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 When Pontiffs of Mutt comes, they will be given 'Satagopam' at the entrance of 'Big sanctum' (big Gopuram) with honorary greets and be taken into Sanctum Sanctorum by giving Theertha, Sandal, Aalavattam along with darshan of God and after darshan by performing 'Pradakshina' to temple with a big procession is a rule.
Whenever other important VIPs visit, they should be welcomed by Parupattedar with 'Bajantries' to have darshan of God is a regulation. Others like Kings, Mattadipathies comes to Tirumala, the Prasadam like Manohara laddus - 2, Ekantha Abhaya Hastham - 1 with Bajanthries either by Thahasildhar or Parupattedar with Sabha people or Uttara Parupattedar with its things mentioned above should be honoured with 'ISTAKABAL' from the steps.
And the personnel of Kings and their people when come for darshan at the temple they should be given Theertha, Aalavattam, sandal etc. in their honour. After darshan is over, they will be taken around temple with procession to their place.
The Mattadipathi, Sanyasi of Samsthans, they will be honoured at Hanumantharaya Swamy temple with satagopuram before entering the temple. Immediately to the kin of Mutt people be provided darshan. At that place where they are, they should be honoured with Theertha, Aalavattam, sandal etc. As per the rules, the followers of Srivaishnava cult like Ahobila Swamy, Vanamamala Swamy, Parakala Swamy, Madwamutt (Satyapoorna Mutt, Vyasaraya Swamy Mutt, Sumatheendra Swamy Mutt) three Mutt heads, the Acharya Purusha, Sri Ranga Bhattachari, Adhanki Achari should be taken till 'Kulasekhar padi' and be provided darshan. Others should stay outside 'Kulasekhar padi' and should have darshan. Other people like gosai etc. gruhastas should be honoured with one Manoharam or one Ekantham or Kaanika Abayahastham and be taken in a procession with 'Baajaabajanthries' (paraphernalia) by Uttara Parupattedar with 'ISTAKABAL' (temple honour) is a rule."
28 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 The Dittam extracted above i.e. resolution passed by the TTD was referred to in "Sri Archakam Peddinti Srinivasamurthy Dikshitulu v. The Commissioner, Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments and Others11". The Court observed that the Darshan of Lord Venkateswara is given to those who perform the various Arjitha Sevas and Utsavams and also to those who do not pay anything. The second kind of Darshan is called " Dharma Darshan" and upto a few years back, the time for "
Dharma Dharsan" was about 14 hours in a day without in any manner reducing the time earlier fixed for Arjitha Sevas. The result being that the temple was closed hardly for about an hour or two during the 24 hours and the Dittam as defined under the Act came up for consideration. In the facts of the above judgment, to decide what is the quantum of Dittam, the Full Bench of this Court referred to the Dittam, extracted above and observed as follows:
"The Devasthanams has also published another Telugu printed book called "Tirumala Thirupathi Devasthanam's Dittam" (from Faslis 1200 to 1250) This book was printed in the year 1957. All the aforesaid books published by the Devasthanam in very great extenso specifically state the various scales of provisions for the various food offerings. Paditharamsas and Pannyarams etc., existing from ancient times as per the custom and usage prevailing in the Devasthanam."
Respondent No.2 in its counter (in the facts of the above judgment) stated that the "Savaljavab Patti" of Fasli 1227, the "Kainkarya Pattis" of Faslis 1211 and 1230 and the Dittam book for Faslis 1200 to 1250 are the only documents which set out the procedure that was followed durings those Faslis and serve as a guidance for the future in regard to the matters they deal with and are not "Record of Rights". The Devasthanam Manual was prepared 11 AIR 1973 AP 325 29 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 for observance in the conditions and circumstances which existed when they were published and like all manuals they are liable to modification to suit the needs of society at any particular period of time. The two resolutions of the Devasthanam Committee cited in the petitioner's affidavit themselves prove that the Dittam was changed to suit the necessities of the times.
Thus, the basis for arriving at the conclusions, by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in the said judgment, is the Dittam for Faslis 1200 to 1250. Thereby legal sanctity came to be attached to such Dittam by the Court itself. Therefore, such Dittam is one of the guiding factors to decide the present issue.
As per the judgment in Pannalal Bansilal Pitti v. State of A.P." (referred supra) such classification is not violative of Article 14, 15 (1) and 25 of the Constitution of India. The issue before the Court in the above judgment was with regard to the legality of conferring power of administration on the temple administration as violative of Article 14, 15 (1) and 25 of the Constitution of India. But the Apex Court made it clear that leaving out the institutions and endowments of other religions for the purpose of regulating their administration is not violative of Articles 14, 15 (1) and 25 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, as per guidelines (referred supra), to determine reasonable classification on reasonable basis is permissible. According to guidelines (d) and (e), age may form a rational basis in relation to the object of particular subjects of legislation (Vide:
Chitralekha R. v. State of Mysore12"). The dispute in the facts of the above judgment is with regard to reservations in favour of 12 AIR 1964 SC 1623 30 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 backward classes based on economic condition and occupation, but the Court held that such classification was not bad and does not offend Article 15 (4) of the Constitution of India. At the same time, classification may be based on the difference in the nature of the persons, trade, calling or occupation. The scope and effect of the provisions of Article 14 can no longer be the subject-matter of any doubt or dispute. It is well settled that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group; and the second is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question.
As the decisions of this Court show, the classification on which the statutory provision may be founded may be referable to different consideration. It may be based on geographical considerations or it may have reference to objects or occupations or the like. In every case, there must be some nexus between the basis of the classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statute. (Vide:"Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar13"). The same principle was reiterated in "J.Panduranga Rao v. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission14". 13
[1959]1SCR279 14 AIR 1963 SC 268 31 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 Differentiation based on trade, calling and occupation is not offending the doctrine of equality and protection guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Appling these principles to the present facts of the case, it is necessary to classify VVIPs and VIPs separately from the ordinary pilgrims, who visit temple, and such classification is having reasonable basis on account of their employment, occupation etc., which is permissible under the law referred to above.
The term "VIP" is not defined anywhere, but the Central Government published book, which is known as Blue Book in general parlance, wherein the Central Government specified the order of Protocol in annexure and the procedure to be followed to offer honours to the persons, who are in the list.
To differentiate those persons or classify those persons from ordinary devotees to provide immediate Darshanam either through Mahadwara or through compartments is based on their occupation, employment and status in the Government. It is a known fact that to have Darshanam as an ordinary pilgrim, a person has to stand in the serpentine queue for hours together and the time for Darshanam may vary from hours and days during auspicious days and Utsavams. During auspicious days, it may take more than 24 hours and in ordinary days, it may be around 7 to 14 hours. If the VVIPs and VIPS are not allowed to have immediate Darshanam, they have to spent not less than a day or more to have Darshanam by standing in the long serpentine queue. Their valuable time to render services to the public being high in the State or in the Central Government, time would be lost besides security problems. On account of crowd of 32 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 general devotees, VVIPs and VIPs cannot be denied Darshanam in the temple. Such a denial would infringe the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. If everyone is compelled to stand in the queue, it would be difficult to manage the affairs of the State or Central Government by such bureaucrats, who are classified as VIPs in the blue book published by the Central Government every year. Keeping in mind the requirement of their attendance to various affairs of the State in the interest of the Public, they are differentiated from ordinary pilgrims by providing certain privileges like immediate Darshanam etc. during the specified time having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the abode. Therefore, major part of the day is being utilized by the respondent No.3 - temple for providing Darshanam to ordinary pilgrims, who visit temple and such classification of devotees as VIPs and ordinary pilgrims would not infringe Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, the custom prevailing in the temple as per Dittam extracted above is to provide Darshanam and the temple offers certain privileges by observing Protocol. When such custom and usage is prevailing in the temple since 1790 onwards, the practice of offering Protocol to VVIPs and VIPs cannot be said to be inconsistent with law adopted by the State and against any of the constitutional provisions, more particularly, Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even Section 97 of the Act and Section 4 of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947 confer power on the temple authorities to take administrative decisions to regulate the administration while maintaining decency and decorum in the temples. Legislature conferred power on the Board or on the Trust Board keeping in mind the difficulties encountered by VVIPs and VIPs, who visit temples and to see that the time of such VIPs being 33 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 not wasted which made them to enact those provisions. For instance the Prime Minister of India or Chief Justice of India or other High Dignitaries of the State or Central Government, if asked to stand in the long queue to have Darshnam of deity, it will have serious consequences and sometimes there is possibility of stampede in the temple on account of huge crowd of devotees leads to insecurity of the high dignitaries. To avoid such instances, the TTD took the decision by exercising power under Section 97 of the Act/Section 4 of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the classification of VVIPs and VIPs from ordinary pilgrims, providing Darshanam separately to those VVIPs and VIPs is a reasonable classification based on reasons. Similarly, providing Darshanam to age old people, mothers of infants and physically challenged is also based on reasonable classification having regard to their disability or inability to stand in the queues to have Darshanam. Therefore, it cannot be said that the general public are deprived of their right to worship the deity as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Hence, we hold that the classification of devotees as VVIPs and VIPs from ordinary devotees, who visit temple, is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, but based on reasonable or intelligent differentiation. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners.
P O I N T No.2:
The main endeavour of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on account of providing Darshanam to VVIPs and VIPs
34 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 classifying them as L 1, L 2, and L 3, the other pilgrims, who visit temple, are being deprived of their right to worship guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. He draws the attention of this Court to the judgment of Apex Court in "Indian Young Lawyers Association and others v. The State of Kerala" (referred supra) popularly known as "Sabarimala judgment" in support of his contention. In the said judgment, the Apex Court concluded as follows.
"(i) In view of the law laid down by this Court in Shirur Mutt (supra) and "S.P. Mittal v. Union of India and Ors. (1983) 1 SCC 51" the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination. They do not have common religious tenets peculiar to themselves, which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, other than those which are common to the Hindu religion. Therefore, the devotees of Lord Ayyappa are exclusively Hindus and do not constitute a separate religious denomination.
(ii) Article 25(1), by employing the expression 'all persons', demonstrates that the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion is available, though subject to the restrictions delineated in Article 25(1) itself, to every person including women. The right guaranteed Under Article 25(1) has nothing to do with gender or, for that matter, certain physiological factors specifically attributable to women.
(iii) The exclusionary practice being followed at the Sabrimala temple by virtue of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules violates the right of Hindu women to freely practise their religion and exhibit their devotion towards Lord Ayyappa.
This denial denudes them of their right to worship. The right to practise religion Under Article 25(1) is equally available to both men and women of all age groups professing the same religion.
(iv) The impugned Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules, framed under the 1965 Act, that stipulates exclusion of entry of women of the age group of 10 to 50 years, is a clear violation of the right of Hindu women to practise their religious beliefs which, in consequence, makes their fundamental right of religion Under Article 25(1) a dead letter.
(v) The term 'morality' occurring in Article 25(1) of the Constitution cannot be viewed with a narrow lens so as to confine the sphere of definition of morality to what an individual, a Section or religious sect may perceive the term to mean. Since the Constitution has been adopted and given by the people of this country to themselves, the term public morality in Article 25 35 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 has to be appositely understood as being synonymous with constitutional morality.
(vi) The notions of public order, morality and health cannot be used as colourable device to restrict the freedom to freely practise religion and discriminate against women of the age group of 10 to 50 years by denying them their legal right to enter and offer their prayers at the Sabarimala temple.
(vii) The practice of exclusion of women of the age group of 10 to 50 years being followed at the Sabarimala Temple cannot be regarded as an essential practice as claimed by the Respondent Board.
(viii) In view of the law laid down by this Court in the "Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta (2004) 12 SCC 770" the exclusionary practice being followed at the Sabarimala Temple cannot be designated as one, the non-observance of which will change or alter the nature of Hindu religion. Besides, the exclusionary practice has not been observed with unhindered continuity as the Devaswom Board had accepted before the High Court that female worshippers of the age group of 10 to 50 years used to visit the temple and conducted poojas in every month for five days for the first rice feeding ceremony of their children.
(ix) The exclusionary practice, which has been given the backing of a subordinate legislation in the form of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules, framed by the virtue of the 1965 Act, is neither an essential nor an integral part of the religion.
(x) A careful reading of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules makes it luculent that it is ultra vires both Section 3 as well as Section 4 of the 1965 Act, for the simon pure reason that Section 3 being a non-obstante provision clearly stipulates that every place of public worship shall be open to all classes and Sections of Hindus, women being one of them, irrespective of any custom or usage to the contrary.
(xi) Rule 3(b) is also ultra vires Section 4 of the 1965 Act as the proviso to Section 4(1) creates an exception to the effect that the Regulations/rules made Under Section 4(1) shall not discriminate, in any manner whatsoever, against any Hindu on the ground that he/she belongs to a particular Section or class.
(xii) The language of both the provisions, that is, Section 3 and the proviso to Section 4(1) of the 1965 Act clearly indicate that custom and usage must make space to the rights of all Sections and classes of Hindus to offer prayers at places of public worship. Any interpretation to the contrary would annihilate the purpose of the 1965 Act and incrementally impair the fundamental right to practise religion guaranteed Under Article 25(1).
36 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 Therefore, we hold that Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules is ultra vires the 1965 Act."
But the facts of the present case are totally different from the facts in the judgment of "Sabarimala case". In the said case, women of certain age were not allowed to worship "Lord Ayyappa" by entering into the temple. Though such a restriction was imposed by exercising power under Section 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 and rules framed thereunder, but the Apex Court adverted to the definitions of worship and restriction contained in the Act, more particularly, Section 3 which deals with Places of public worship to open to all Sections and classes of Hindus and Section 4 which deals with power to make Regulations for the maintenance of order and decorum and the due performance of rites and ceremonies in places of public worship and Section 5 deals with penalty. Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 were dealt with in detail. The provisions of Kerala Act are almost identical to the Provisions of Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act. Rule 3 framed under the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, prohibits classes of persons mentioned therein not entitled to offer worship in any place of public worship or bath in or use the water of any sacred tank, well, spring or water course appurtenant to a place of public worship whether situated within or outside precincts thereof, or any sacred place including a hill or hill lock, or a road, street or pathways which is requisite for obtaining access to the place of public worship; and women at such time during which they are not by custom and usage are allowed to enter a place of public worship. The Apex Court concluded that Rule 3 is contrary to Section 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship 37 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, and accordingly struck down holding that Rule 3 (b) framed under the garb of Section 4 (1) is violative of Article 25 (1) of the Constitution of India and issued a direction to the temple authorities to permit women of any age to enter into the temple and worship deity in the temple,.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on various judgments, In ""P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma" (referred supra), the Apex Court held as follows:
"Religion is the belief which binds spiritual nature of men to supernatural being." It includes worship, belief, faith, devotion, etc. and extends to rituals. In ""The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt" (referred supra), the Apex Court held as follows:
"If the tenets of any religious sect of the Hindus prescribe that offerings of food should be given to the idol at particular hours of the day, that periodical ceremonies should be performed in a certain way at certain periods of the year, or that there should be daily recital of the sacred text, or oblations should be offered to the sacred fire, then these are religious practices being regarded as an essential part of the religion and such are beyond state regulation."
In ""Lily Thomas v. Union of India" (referred supra), the Apex Court held as follows:
"Freedom guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution is such freedom which does not encroach upon a similar freedom of the other person"
The law laid down by the Apex Court in the above judgments is not in dispute, since the general public who visit temple are not restrained from worshipping the deity in the temple and as such the question of depriving their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India does not arise.
38 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 In the case on hand, no restrictions are imposed on any Hindu to enter into the temple and worship deity. None of the provisions of the Act or Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947 create such fetter on entry of ordinary pilgrim into the temple to worship the deity in Tirumala. If an ordinary pilgrim is not allowed to enter into temple to worship deity, certainly, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be sustained, as it would amount infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 (1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the facts in Sabarimala case and the present case are different and the principle laid down therein cannot be applied to the present facts of the case, for the simple reason that every pilgrim is permitted to enter into the respondent No.3 - temple irrespective of his caste, creed or sex, but providing immediate Darshanam to VVIPs or VIPs is only to provide necessary security to them and see that no time of theirs is wasted by asking them to wait long time in queues since their services are eminent for running State administration for public good.
Article 25 deals with right to freedom of religion and it is extracted hereunder for better appreciation "Article 25.
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
39 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Explanation I. The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. Explanation II. In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly."
The protection guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India is not confined to matters of doctrine of belief but extends to acts done in pursuance of religion and, therefore contains a guarantee for rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are essential or integral part of religion. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion is part of Part III, which deals with fundamental rights, that guarantees every person in India shall have the freedom of conscience and shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to restrictions imposed by the State on the ground of public order, morality and health; other provisions of the Constitution; regulation of non-religious activity associated with religious practice; social welfare and reform; throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes of Hindus. Since the freedom belongs to every person, the freedom of one cannot encroach upon a similar freedom belonging to other persons. However, subject to the restrictions stated above, every person in India can exercise such freedom of religion to practice or profess or protect any religion as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of Constitution of India is hedged by few exceptions stated above, more particularly, public order, morality and health. What is "public order" is not 40 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 defined under the Constitution. But the Apex Court in various judgments defined what is "public order". Expression "Public Order"
has a distinct Connotation. Public order, has a comprehensive meaning so as to include public safety in its relation to the maintenance of public order and maintenance of public order involves consideration of public safety. They are closely allied concepts (Vide: "Revana Siddaiah v. State of Mysore15". Public order, has a very wide connotation public order is the basic need in any organized society. It implies the orderly State of Society and Community in which citizens can peacefully pursue their normal activities of life (Vide: "Kamlakar Shankar Patil v. B. Akashi16") Public order, has in several decisions, been equated with public safety and tranquility. Each and every breach of tranquility in a sense would involve breach of public order. Public order, in regard to Preventive Detention Acts is an expression of wide connotation and signifies that state of tranquility prevailing among the members of a political society as a result of the internal regulations enforced by the government which they have instituted (Vide: "Ramesh Thapper v. State of Madras17"). Public order, in the State must be interpreted to include public safety in its relation to maintenance of public order, both of them being interdependent (See: "Menon, MP v. State18"). Public order, is an expression of wide connotation and signifies that state of tranquility prevailing among the members of political society as a result of the internal regulation enforced by the government which they have instituted. Public order requires absence of disturbance of a state of serenity in society, but it goes further: it 15 (1952) Cr LJ 1526 16 (1994) Cr LJ 1870 17 AIR 1950 SC 124 18 (1953) Cr LJ 1786
41 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 means, What the French designate order publique defined as an absence of insurrection, riot, turbulence, or crimes of violence, (See:
"Babulal v. State of Orissa19"). 'Public order' has a narrower ambit, and public order could be affected by only such contravention which affects the community or the public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality.
Since the right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India is subject to public order, morality and health etc., providing immediate Darshanam to VVIPs and VIPs through Mahadwara or through compartments would fall within the exception to general rule. In fact, it is not the case of the petitioner that general public were not allowed to have Darshanam, but on account of visit of thousands of pilgrims to temple to worship deity, the Darshanam is being delayed. Therefore, the act of the respondent No.3 permitting VVIPs and VIPs is in the interest of State and to maintain public order, thereby such act would not infringe the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, according to Article 25 of the Constitution of India the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion is religious matter, but not unsecular matter. If it is secular matter, it would not fall within Article 25 of the Constitution of India. What is secular matter and what is religious matter, depends upon the facts of each case. For the first time, the Apex Court in "Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt20" defined what is 19 (1995) Cr LJ 307 20 AIR 1954 SC 282
42 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 "religion" and what is "religious" and drawn the distinction between "religious matter" and "secular matter" holding as follows:
"Religion is a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic. A religion may hot only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion, and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress.
The guarantee under the Constitution of India not only protects the freedom of religious opinion but it protects also acts done in pursuance of a religion and this is made clear by the use of the expression 'practice of religion' in Article 25.
What constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself. If the tenets of any religious sect of the Hindus prescribe that offerings of food should be given to the idol at particular hours of the day, that periodical ceremonies should be performed in a certain way at certain periods of the year or that there should be daily recital of sacred texts or oblations to the sacred fire, all these will be regarded as parts of religion and the mere fact that they involve expenditure of money or employment of priests and servants or the use of marketable commodities will not make them secular activities partaking of a commercial or economic character; all of them are religious practices and should be regarded as matters of religion within the meaning of Article 26(b)."
The Supreme Court again in "His Holiness Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeer Swami etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu21" re-stated the position by quoting the summarised portion of law, as was done in "Sardar Syeda Taker Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay22"
"The content of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution came up for consideration before this Court in the "Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar", (referred supra) "Sri Jagannath Ramanuj Das and Anr. v. State of Orissa and Anr.23", "Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali24", and several other cases and the main principles underlying these provisions have by these 21 [1972] 3 SCR 815 22 AIR 1962 SC 853 23 [1954] 1 SCR 1046 24 [1962] 1 SCR 383
43 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 decisions been placed beyond controversy. The first is that the protection of these articles is not limited to matters of doctrine or belief, they extend also to acts done in pursuance of religion and therefore contain a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of religion. The second is that what constitutes an essential part of a religion or religious practice has to be decided by the Courts with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion and include practices which are regarded by the community as a part of its religion."
The Apex Court in "Venkataramana Devaru and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors." (referred supra) held as follows:
"With the growth in importance of temples and of worship therein, more and more attention came to be devoted to the ceremonial law relating to the construction of temples, installation of idols therein and conduct of worship of the deity, and numerous are the treatises that came to be written for its exposition. These are known as Agamas. These Agamas contain elaborate rules as to how the temple is to be consecrated and where the other Devatas are to be installed and where the several classes of worshippers are to stand and worship."
In view of the definition of the word "religion", offering worship deity in the temple would fall within the religious matter. 'Worship' is defined in Sub-Section (2) of Section 2 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947, which reads thus:
'worship' means such religious service as the bulk of the worshippers may offer, or participate in, in accordance with such rules and regulations as may be made under this Act.
In the recent past, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court had an occasion to decide an issue with regard to discrimination of devotees on payment of amount for Special Darshanam. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in "C.Arun @ Arunachalam v. The Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu Government and 201 others (W.P.(MD) No.12834 of 2013)" referred to the judgment in SA (MD) No.318 of 2004, formed a substantial question of law as to whether
44 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 imposing entry fee for a dharshan at Sri Devi Bhagavathi Amman Temple violates Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that it is not as though no dharshan is provided to the devotees, fee is paid and special dharshan fee is collected only from the devotees, who want quick dharshan. The other devotees are not at all prevented from having dharshan and thus there is no discrimination at all.
Similarly, in another judgment in "Indic Collective Trust v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment and another (W.P.No.28882 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.31094 of 2017)", a question was raised as to discriminatory practice being followed by authorities of Sri Andal Temple at Srivilliputtur, Arulmighu Ekambaranathar Temple at Kanchipuram and Arulmigu Oppiliappan Temple at Thirunageswaram. In the said case, the contention of the petitioner was that petitioner opted for 'free darshan' under the impression that all the devotees irrespective of whether they were in the 'free darshan queue' or in the 'paid darshan queue' would ultimately be allowed to have the same darshan for relatively equal duration and from the same distance from the Deity, but found that the practice followed was to allow worship to devotees paying special fees from a shorter distance in comparison to others who opted 'free darshan'.
Following the judgment in "C.Arun @ Arunachalam v. The Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu Government and 201 others (W.P.(MD) No.12834 of 2013)" (referred supra) the Court held that it would not amount to discrimination. However, directed the temples to provide darshan of the Deity from the entry point of "Artha Mandapam" for all devotees, irrespective of whether they pay or opt for free darshan, 45 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 as per their turn in the ordinary queue for free entry. In the facts of the above judgment, religious practice prevailing in the temple with regard to extending temple honours to several persons was not the issue. But in the present case, the TTD Board took a decision during Gregorian Calendar year 1790 to provide Darshanam, which contained usage and custom prevailing in the temple to offer such honours to VVIPs, VIPs, Kings, Matadhipathis etc. as per Dittam extracted above. Further, none of the VVIPs or VIPs are being provided free darshanam, all of them have to purchase the ticket for such Darshanam. Even if, the principles laid down in the above judgments are applied, it would not infringe the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
The pilgrims visit temple only to worship deity in the temple by offering prayers, but due to unmanageable visits of pilgrims everyday, more particularly on auspicious days, respondent No.3 making separate arrangements to both VVIPs and VIPs and ordinary pilgrims, who visit temple. In fact, VVIPs and VIPs are entitled to certain facility as mentioned in "Yellow Book" which prescribes certain guidelines of Protocol to be followed whenever VVIPs and VIPs visit public places. The respondent No.3 - temple is a public temple though not a public place, but depending upon threat perception, VVIPs and VIPs are entitled to certain protection even as per "Yellow Book". The protection to be provided to VVIPs and VIPs is categorized as Z+, Z, Y and X. When the State is under obligation to provide such security to VVIPs and VIPs, notified in "Blue Book" and "Yellow Book"
issued by Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, protection has to be provided to VVIPs and VIPs when they visit temple to worship deity in the temple because of threat perception. If
46 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 they were asked to enter into the temple by standing in the long queue along with ordinary devotees, their security is at stake and it would amounts to failure of the State to provide necessary security to VVIPs and VIPs. Even accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as true, on this aspect, the respondent No.3 - temple is not denying Darshanam to any of the pilgrims, who visit temple, but with a little delay. Moreover, as observed earlier providing Darshanam directly to VVIPs and VIPs, would not cause any hindrance to ordinary pilgrim except for one or two hours in a day. As per counter filed by the respondent No.3 - temple the Sarvadarshanam will be stopped for offering Nivedana to the Deity in the Sanctum Sanctorum during morning, afternoon and in the evening times and the VIPs and VVIPs will be allowed to have darshan immediately after completion of the Nivedana process in the morning hours only. The said practice would not amount to infringement of fundamental right of any pilgrim, who visits temple. As held earlier, it is for the Trust Board to take steps to regulate the administration of the temple exercising power under Section 97 of the Act and Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947. Therefore, providing such separate Darshanam to VVIPs and VIPs keeping in mind the public order and to provide necessary security in terms of "Yellow Book" and "Blue Book" published by Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs is not in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of India, since the right conferred by the Article 25 (1) of the Constitution of India is not absolute in character. The right protected under Article 25(2)(b) is a right to enter into a temple for purposes of worship, and that it should be construed liberally in favour of the public. No member of the Hindu public could, for example, claim as part of the 47 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 rights protected by Article 25 (2) (b) that a temple must be kept open for worship at all hours of the day and night, or that he should personally perform those services, which the Archakas alone could perform. It is again a well-known practice of religious institutions of all denominations to limit some of its services to persons who have been specially invited, though at other times, the public in general are free to participate in the worship. Thus, the right recognised by Article 25 (2) (b) must necessarily be subject to some limitations or regulations, and one such limitation or regulation must arise in the process of harmonising the right conferred by Article 25 (2) (b) with that protected by Article 26 (b) of Constitution of India in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in "Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore" (referred supra). Even this principle is applied to the present facts of the case, practice of permitting immediate Darshanam to VVIPs and VIPs is once in a day for an hour or two and the remaining hours of the day is for the general pilgrims, who visit temple to worship deity. Therefore, providing such Darshanam would not infringe the right of any Hindu, who is entitled to practice and propagate the religion. Though worship is a religious ceremony and the general public are allowed to enter into temple after Break Darshanam freely to worship deity in the temple, the break of one or two hours for VVIPs and VIPs and to perform normal rituals in the temple as per Agama Sastra, would not infringe the fundamental right guaranteed under the constitution.
One of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that categorization of VIP devotees as L 1, L 2 and L 3 is not having any legal basis and in the absence of any basis, such practice has to be discontinued. In the counter, respondent No.3 -
48 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 temple stated that categorization of L 1, L 2 and L 3 Darshanams is cancelled subject to decision being taken by the Board to be constituted by the Government. Even if such categorization of L 1, L 2 and L 3 is in existence, it is in consonance with the Dittam extracted above. The Dittam (referred supra) prescribed certain honours to be offered to various pilgrims, who visit temple, more particularly VVIPs, VIPs, Kings, Matadipathis etc. depending upon their status. Hence, such categorization prevailing as on today is in terms of decision taken in Gregorian Calendar year 1790 and during Faslis 1200 to 1250. The Dittam is also in consonance with the power conferred on the Trust Board by Section 4 of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947 and Section 97 of the Act. Therefore, such classification would not infringe the right of any individual pilgrim including VVIPs and VIPs.
In view of our foregoing discussion, we are of the view that providing Darshanam to VVIPs and VIPs during one hour or two hours per day classifying them as L 1, L 2 and L 3 is not violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners. P O I N T No.3:
As we find that providing special Darshanam to VVIPs and VIPs through Mahadwara or through compartments provided for Darshanam of pilgrims at the temple is not violative of Articles 14 and 25 of Constitution of India, the question of issuing any directions to the respondent No.3 - temple to take steps to prevent such practice does not arise. When the Act conferred power on the TTD Board to regulate administration etc., under Section 97 of the Act and Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Temple Entry
49 HACJ & MSM,J WP(PIL)_59_ 2019 Authorization Act, 1947, it is for the TTD Board to regulate Break darshanam to VVIPs and VIPs; and darshanam to ordinary pilgrims, who are in thousands and lakhs sometimes, as the number of pilgrims per day vary from day to day and from occasion to occasion. Therefore, respondent No.3 - temple is at liberty to exercise its power to regulate VVIP and VIP darshanam in terms of Section 97 of the Act and Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947 without causing inconvenience to any of the devotees, who visit temple to worship Deity keeping in mind the issue of security to VVIPs and VIPs as discussed in earlier paragraphs. Moreover, when the similar question came up for decision before the Division Bench in "K.V.N.Narahari Babu v. The Government of A.P. (W.P.No.3877 of 2008)", the Division Bench dismissed the petition.
In view of our foregoing discussion, the writ petition is devoid of any merits and it deserves to be dismissed.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________________ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR _________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 21.08.2019 Note:
Mark L.R.Copy B/o Ksp