Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Shri Mata Vaishno Devi temple, in Jammu & Kashmir, is under the management and supervision of the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board constituted under the J&K Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988. Shri Jagannath Temple at Puri is under the control of a temple management committee constituted under the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955. A challenge to its constitutional validity, on the touch-stone of Article 26-(d) of the Constitution of India, was rejected by the Orissa High Court in Ram Chandra Deb v. State of Orissa[1], and the judgment of the Orissa High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa[2]. The Somnath temple is managed by the board of a religious and charitable trust registered under the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950, and the Shri Shirdi Sai Baba temple is managed by the board of the Shri Shirdi Sai Baba Sansthan Trust which is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

4. The Mahakaleshwar temple at Ujjain is in the control of a managing committee constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Shri Mahakaleshwar Act, 1982, and the Guruvayoor temple in Kerala is under the control of the Travancore Devaswom Board constituted under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The Kashi Vishwanath temple at Banaras is under the management of a board constituted under the U.P. Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983. The validity of the 1983 Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.[5]. Two of the Chardham temples in Uttarakhand, i.e. Shri Badrinath and Shri Kedarnath temples, were, prior to the 2019 Act coming into force, under the control and management of a managing committee constituted under the U.P. Shri Badrinath and Shri Kedarnath Temples Act, 1939 which continued to remain in force till it was repealed by the 2019 Act.

24. Unlike judicial and quasi-judicial orders, or even administrative orders, which must contain reasons, no such obligation is placed on the State legislature in making laws. It is for the Court to ascertain the object of the legislation, if need be, by resort to aids of construction, both internal and external. No obligation is placed by the Constitution on the State Legislature to produce evidence before the Court, regarding improper management or mis-management of the Char Dham fund, necessitating the 2019 Act being made. As shall be elaborated later in this order, the history of the Shri Badrinath and Shri Kedarnath temples, which has resulted in the U.P. Shri Badrinath and Shri Kedarnath Temples Act, 1939 being made, would show that these temples were mismanaged necessitating the 1939 Act being enacted. In so far as the Shri Gangotri Dham temple is concerned, a bare reading of its by-laws made in 2002, as shall be elaborated hereinafter, would itself show that the funds of the Gangotri Dham were mis-utilized. Neither is it permissible for us, nor do we see any reason to do so, to declare the 2019 Act unconstitutional on this score.

48. It is also contended, on behalf of the respondents, that the right under Article 26 is available only to a religious denomination or a section thereof; Dr. Subramanian Swamy has not raised any plea, either in the writ affidavit or in his rejoinder, that these temples are managed by a specific religious denomination; no reference is made therein to any body or organization which constitutes such a religious denomination; there is no claim that any particular religious denomination has established these temples, and they should therefore be maintained by them; without pleadings, an argument has been raised that the 2019 Act provides for Hindus, practicing Sanathan Dharma, to be a religious denomination; the intention of the Legislature is otherwise; such a contention has been negated by the Supreme Court in Sri Adi Visheshwara[5]; the impugned legislation does not violate Article 26(b) of the Constitution as it does not regulate any affairs in matters of religion; rather by way of Section 2(j), (k),(l) and (m), Sections 15, 19, 28, 35(2)(a), the impugned Act protects affairs in matters of religion; the petitioner has not raised any claim under Article 26(c) of the Constitution; the word "such" in Article 26(d) is significant; to claim any right under Article 26(d), the petitioner must establish the origin of the claim and establish that, from the date of establishment of that property, they never lost that right; in the present case, if at all there was any right with the priests to administer the Badrinath and Kedarnath temples, it was already lost by the 1939 Act, and was never retrieved through any legal process thereafter; the facts on record show that Shri Kedarnath and Shri Badrinath Temple (along with others temples in Schedules I and II) were already governed, under the Uttar Pradesh Shri Badrinath and Shri Kedarnath Temples Act, 1939, through a Committee constituted by the State Government, in accordance with the Rules framed by the State Government from time to time; the 2019 Act does not divest any religious denomination of Hindus from the management of the religious affairs of these temples; the petitioner has not pleaded any particular religious denomination as having established these temples, which can now claim the right to administer them; if the entire Hindu community is treated as a religious denomination, even then no interference is called for, as the 2019 Act has created a board comprising only of Hindus; the officers of the Board can hold office only on the basis of their faith i.e. Hindu religion; under Section 3(A) of the Act, members are qualified to hold office only if they profess Hindu religion; under Section 3(2)(B)(ii) and (vi), members of the Royal family and three priests have also been inducted into the Board, and are thereby involved in the administration of the temple; the impugned Act does not interfere in matters of religion; it only regulates secular functions associated in matters of religion of these temples; and Sections 32(7) and 34(5) bring transparency in the financial matters of these temples, which are in public interest.