Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The petitioners, 114 in number, complain that the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, by a stroke of pen, under the guise of unguided statutory provision, put an end to their age-old business of bartering (tonsuring and haircutting) in Tirumala Hills area abridging thereby the fundamental right resulting in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

2. The case is concerned with the rights of barbers in respect of their calling, viz., tonsuring and hair-cutting, vis-a-vis the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams. But we must say something about 'tonsuring' as disclosed by the papers placed before us.

3. 'Tonsuring' denotes the well established concept of devotive offerings by pilgrims of their hair. In this case, it pertains to the 10-1/3 square miles of the Tirumala Hills, area wherein the main shrine of Lord Venkateswara is located and where pilgrims offer their hair to be shaven by barbers, to the deity. The Tirumala Hills area was alienated by the East India Company in favour of the Temple, and in fact, it was in exclusive possession of the shrine ever since 1874. The title of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (for short TTD) for the entire area of 10-1/3 square miles was recognised by the State Government by G. O. Ms. No. 1784, Revenue Department, dated 4-11-1965 and G. O. Ms. Nos. 1605 and 1606 dated 2-12-1975. Centres of Kalyanakatta were established, where the hair offered by the pilgrims to the Lord is shaved and no hair-dressing or hair-cut-ling is carried on at the Kalyanakatta maintained by the TTD. Right to tonsure was the exclusive right of the TTD. In fact, the tonsure was performed through the agency of Mirasis. In the year 1975, when a dispute arose between the mirasidars and the other barbers, a suit was filed; and eventually, it was decided that the Mirasi office-holders of the Tirumala Kalyanakatta are solely and exclusively entitled to render tonsure to the pilgrim votaries, and the barbers have no manner of right to render tonsure to any pilgrim votary and they shall not induce any pilgrim votary to have tonsure. Therefore, the barbers were restrained by a permanent injunction from rendering the service of tonsure to any pilgrim votary offering his hair in discharge of a vow, either by themselves or through their agents. This was, in fact, confirmed by the High Court in 1963. See the judgment dated 23-7-1963 in S. A. No. 156 of 1960. For over a century, beginning from a decision reported in (1887) ILR 12 Bom 247 followed up by the decisions in (1896) ILR 23 Cal 645 and ILR 31 Mad 771 (sic) down to the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in A. S. No. 105 of 1977 dated 22-1-1979, the principle enunciated that under the law the Temple is the owner of the hair which its pilgrims leave behind after tonsure and that the barber, and for that matter, even the Pujaris and other service-holders attached to the temple, have no title to the hair, is well trenched. Therefore, the hair offered to the deity is the exclusive property of the TTD and the persons other than those authorised by the TTD cannot tonsure the heads of the pilgrims and appropriate the proceeds. The entire Tirumala Hills area surrounding the temple of Lord Venkaieswara is considered sacred and holy. Pilgrims are expected to have their tonsure immediately after their arrival at Tirumala at the place known as Kalyanakatta located at the entrance of the Tirumala Hills. Originally, 44 families of barbers by caste were rendering service of tonsure; and with the increase in the number of pilgrims, more than 500 barbers are now said to be rendering the service of tonsure under the direct control of the TTD and the emoluments for the service are paid by the TTD. It has been also stated across the bar that the income out of the sale proceeds of the said hair runs into several lakhs every year.

23. In the context of historical background, we have already seen that votive offerings, which include tonsured hair requiring to be converted into cash before gaining entry into the temple Hundi, belong to the Deity. Therefore, in order to safeguard the interests of the Deity, which is one of the adjuncts of the policy viz., the better administration and governance of the TTD, guarding and augmenting its income which includes the offerings made in the temple, and also having due regard to public interest in the matter of not only providing services and amenities but also undertaking welfare and safety measures for the pilgrims visiting the temple and making offerings, the Executive Officer has exercised that discretion conferred on him under Sub-section (3) (a) of Section 27. The discretion so conferred, is not absolute in itself as the Executive Officer has stated in his notification which is quite in accord with the provisions of the statute itself. He has not placed complete embargo. What he has explicitly stated is that without authorisation, no person should resort to tonsuring or hair-cutting or opening a hair-cutting saloon in the Tirumala Hills Area. It is, therefore, evident that persons interested in carrying on such business or profession may apply for according the necessary permission and that permission will either be accorded or withheld depending upon the circumstances of the case, having due regard to public health, safety measures and also safeguarding the income and interest of the Deity. It has been brought to our notice that pursuant to the said notification, about 12 persons applied and out of them, 9 got licences to have hair-cutting saloons. It is, therefore, manifest from the above that the discretion which is said to be residing in the section is not so naked as it was sought to be made out

24. It may also be seen that the Act has provided remedial measures by way of appeal, revision and review to the Committee and the Government against the orders passed by the Executive Officer, which are, by way of safeguards, conspicuous constraints on the discretion so exercised by the Executive Officer.

25. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that even the tonsuring cannot be prohibited absolutely nor can it be carried on through the agency of the Devasthanams to the exclusion of others like the petitioners. To buttress the argument further, it is also submitted that it is the fundamental right of every pilgrim to have tonsured through any agency he liked and it is for the authorities to make suitable arrangements for the proper collection of the hair tonsured. The submission, though at first flush appears to be attractive, is, in our judgment, devoid of merit and substance.