Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Raja of Puri challenging the constitutional validity of Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 (Orissa Act II of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed by the Orissa Legislature and published in the Orissa Gazettee dated 4-11-1955.

2. The petition was filed by Sri Ramchandra Deb, who made extravagant claims to the effect that the Temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri (hereinafter referred to as the Temple) was the private temple of his family, that all its movcable and immovable properties were also his private properties, and that by passing the Act the Orissa Legislature infringed the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 26, 27, 28 and 31(2) of the Constitution. Sri Ramchandra Deb died after the filing of the petition and his son Sri Bira Kishore Deb, was substituted in his place on 5-3-1957. Mr. A. C. Gupta who appeared for Sri Bira Kishore Deb frankly conceded that the Temple was a public Temple and the properties of the Temple were the properties of the Deity and not the private properties of the Raja of Puri. In view of this concession, the scope of the controversy between the parties has been very much narrowed down and the main question for consideration is whether the Act infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Mr. Gupta urged as a subsidiary point that Articles 14, 19 and 31(2) may also be attracted.

As a first step in this direction, the Orissa Legislature passed an Act entitled the Puri Sri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act 1952 (Orissa Act XIV of 1952), with the main object of securing an accurate record of rights and duties of the innumerable sebaks, pujaris and other persons connected with the management of the Temple and its endowments. Section 3 of that Act conferred power on the State Government to appoint a Special Officer for the preparation of such a record of rights, and Section 4 conferred consequential and ancillary powers on that Officer.

The Puri Sri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act 1952 was made a part of the Act by Section 3, Section 5 vested the management of the Temple in a Managing Committee constituted under the Act, and that Committee was made a body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal. The constitution of the Committee is fully described in Section 6. It consists of 11 persons with the Raja of Puri as its Chairman. The Commissioner of Endowments Act and the Administrator of the Temple appointed under Section 19 of the Act were made ex-officio members. One person was to be nominated by the State Government from the learned Pandits entitled to sit on the Muktimandop of the Temple. Three persons were to be nominated by the State Government from the sebaks of the Temple recorded in the Record of Rights. Four other persons were to be nominated by the State Government from other classes of persons. No person was eligible to be a member of the Committee unless he professes the Hindu Religion. Section 7 preserves the hereditary right of the Raja of Puri to be the Chairman of the Committee by saying that if at any time the Raja happens to be a minor the State Government may appoint any other person to be the Chairman of the Committee, but it shall take into consideration the suitability of the next in the line of succession to Raja of Puri for such temporary appointment after consulting the Advocate General.

28. The next Article to be considered is Article 14. According to Mr. Gupta, the Legislature should not have made a separate Act for the Temple alone. There are adequate provisions in the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act which is a general Act applicable to all public temples and religious institutions. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments has ample powers under that Act to frame a scheme for the proper management of the Temple also and the Legislature by enacting a separate piece of legislation for the Temple alone, ignoring the other temples of Orissa such as those at Bhubaneswar where also there may be similar maladministration has contravened Article 14.