Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Shri Parasaran, the learned senior counsel, contended that Section 48 of the Act excludes application of Sections 18 to 22, 25 and 28 of Chapter III to maths. The other provisions in Chapter III by implication would apply to the maths for the reason that they are not excluded. Sections 34 and 35, therefore, by implication stand attracted to the mathadhipati irrespective of the fact whether mathadhipati falls under the definition of "hereditary trustee" or not.

Mathadhipati is the spiritual head to impart religious instructions. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a hereditary trustee nor he be held to hold any office or service or a post by whatever name it is called. Appointment of a mathadhipati is not a secular act. Mathadhipati, indisputably not being a trustee, his appointment is purely a religious act. The nomination of the mathadhipati is based upon usage and custom of the math. It is a concept appertaining to Hindu religious endowment. It is sui generis. One cannot put it in a strait jacket by any jurisprudential concept. Section 54 imposes recognition of the nomination of a mathadhipati by the Commissioner, an officer of the Government, who does not have knowledge of usages or practices prevalent in the relevant math. Imposition of such conditions is an interference with freedom of religion and power to manage religious affairs. removal of Mahant under Section 51, filling up of vacancy under Section 53, recognition of nomination of Mahant under Section 54 and powers to frame a scheme for the management of a math under Section 55 are ultra vires of Articles 25(1) and 26(b) of the Constitution. The learned counsel elaborated the contentions arguing that the procedure for nomination of the mathadhipati, convening of a meeting with mathadhipatis of other maths of similar Samparadayams as provided under Section 54 [2] of the Act, are repugnant to the usage and Sampardayams of the same math. Each math is governed by its own usage and Sampardayams. No two maths can be held to be governed by the same set of usages and Sampardayams unless one is specific endowment or subordinate of the main math. Though several maths may propagate the same religious philosophy, each math will have its own distinct and different usage or Sampardayams. Even a math propagating the tenets of religious philosophy of Adishankracharya are having different Sampardayams. Similarly, each math following and propagating the dwaita philosophy of Madhwacharya will have its own Sampardayam. maths propagating Vashisthadwaita philosophy of Shriramanujacharya have their own Sampardayams. Therefore, the Act attempting to regulate nomination of a mathadhipati at the recommendation of other mathadhipatis and its acceptance by the Commissioner, or filling up similarly of temporary vacancies in the office of mathadhipati, are but naked interference with religious tenets of Hindu religion.

Qualifications and disqualifications of a mathadhipati have been separately set out in Sections 53(2) and 51(1) respectively in Chapter V, which deals with maths. The qualifications or disqualifications for a trustee mentioned in Sections 18 and 19 do not apply to a Mahant. Equally, Section 20 deals with constitution of board of trustees and its Chairmanship which do not apply to a mathadhipati since mathadhipati is a single person. Section 22 has no application, since Section 51 deals with filling up of temporary vacancies of mathadhipati and Section 53 deals with filling up of permanent vacancy in the office of mathadhipati. Equally, Section 25 is not applicable to a math since Section 49 occupies the field for fixation of dittam for the math. Section 28 does not apply to mathadhipati, which has been separately dealt with in Chapter V. All the provisions contained in Chapter V of the Act regulate proper management and administration of the math and the receipt of income, manner of use and accountability of the Padkanukas to Mahant and the math. Section 48, therefore, makes explicit what is implicit in other provisions of the Act. Recognition of nomination of Matahandhipati [spiritual head] by the Commissioner under Section 53 was made a condition precedent for succession to the office of the mathadhipati only to ensure that a person possessed of the qualifications prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 51, alone would succeed to the office of mathadhipati. The object is to prevent future litigation to the succession to the office. It was enacted to avoid indelible effect on the administration of the math properties and to safeguard the interests of the math which otherwise adversely gets affected due to protracted litigation for years. Power has been conferred on the Commissioner who is the head of the Endowment Department and a high-ranking officer with vast administration experience. The law presumes that he would reasonably exercise all the powers to grant permission. It would imply that the Commissioner would call in aid alla necessary or consequential powers usually implied and necessary to the proper exercise of the power and performance of the duties to effectuate the purpose and the object of the regulation. Therefore, it would be necessary that the Commissioner should have implied powers. In cases where the Commissioner feels that the nomination of the successor requires examination, the obligation to consult a Mahant of a similar math is cast on him; that too with a mathadhipati of other maths having the same Sampardayams. An agama shastra pandit working in the office of the Commissioner, Endowment Department, advises the Commissioner in the matters of religion including usages, customs or Sampardayams observed by a religious institution. Rules, viz., Agama Shastra Pandit Service Rules, 1987 (for short, "Pandit Rules") made in the behalf provide guidance. If no objection to the nomination of a mathadhipati is raised by any person, or where the Commissioner does not have any other adverse material, or where the nominee does not suffer from any disqualification, he does not withhold permission for succession as a mathadhipati. Only when objections are raised by any interested person or even by a disciple or the Commissioner has adverse material, he would seek clarification or information from the nominee or the mathadhipati or both and the take a decision. Rule 5 of the Pandit Rules provides necessary guidelines in that behalf. The Commissioner is not expected to exercise his powers under Section 53 (1) arbitrarily or unreasonably. If he so does in an individual case, the correctness thereof may be quashed in an appropriate proceeding. according to the prescribed procedure.

Section 45 of the predecessor Act of 1966 did not require the mathadhipati to maintain regular accounts of receipts of personal gifts or other gifts made to the mathadhipati as head of the math. He was allowed to spend at his discretion for any purpose which is not immoral or illegal. As the Commission, after enquiry, found that corrupt practices were devised to siphon off the funds of the math as Padakanukas, i.e., personal gifts or the same are utilised for leading luxurious, immoral or extravagant way of life, the Commissioner has been empowered to direct the mathadhipati to render accounts of the gifts received by mathadhipatis. The provision, therefore, was made only for accountability of the receipts of such gifts by the mathadhipatis. In view of the admission that the gifts made to the mathadhipati for the math are accountable, the Mahant is liable to account for the same. The personal gifts also would be required to be accounted only to the extent of their receipt and not how they are spent by him; he has full freedom to spend for religious purposes etc. After deletion of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 from part III of the Constitution by 44th Constitution (Amendment) Act, the law laid down by this Court that the mathadhipati had the fundamental right to property no longer is available to him. Therefore, he is required to maintain regular accounts of the receipt of padakanukas or other personal gifts and to spend the same at his discretion for purposes connected with the objects of the math and propagation of the Hindu dharma. The Act only regulates secular activities of the mathadhipati in spending the Padakanukas and that too in his own interest. Therefore, the regulations are permissible under Article 25 of the Constitution. It does not amount to interference with the religious functions of the mathadhipati as head of the math. Since no rules regarding the transfer of the employees of the maths have been made, the question of vires need not be gone into. If and when rules are made the question whether they are consistent with the scheme needs to be gone into at that time. Therefore, the argument in that behalf is only of academic interest.

Section 52 operates for filling up of temporary vacancies in the office of mathadhipati. Sub-section (1) thereof enumerates the circumstances in which the office of mathadhipati temporarily falls vacant, viz., where a dispute exists of the right to succession to the office of Mahant or where the Mahant is a minor and his no guardian fit and willing to act as guardian or where the mathadhipati is under suspension under sub-section (3) of Section 51. On the ex i stence of any of the three grounds, the Commissioner shall, if he is satisfied, after making enquiry in this behalf, that arrangement for administration of the math of the specific endowment, as the case may be, is necessary and after satisfying himself as to such necessity, makes such arrangements as he thinks fit until the disability of the mathadhipati ceases or other mathadhipati succeeds to the office, as the case may be. The satisfaction reached by the Commissioner would be on consideration of the material and other relevant attending circumstances. Sub-section (2) enjoins that the Commissioner, in making interim arrangement for filling up temporary vacancy, shall have due regard to the claims, if any, by the disciples of the math. In other words, the Commissioner is enjoined to make arrangements to fill up the temporary vacancy as an interim measure. He shall endeavour to give due regard to the claims of any of the disciples of the math for management of the math as temporary mathadhipati until the disability of the mathadhipati ceases or another mathadhipati duly succeeds to the office, as the case may be. In the case of filling up of the vacancies when the mathadhipati nominated is a minor, sub-section (3) makes available the remedy under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Court of Wards Act, 1902 or Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Court of Wards Act, 1350F, as the case may be, to appoint property or personal guardian under the respective Acts applicable to the place where the math is situated, for appointment of a fit person as guardian to the ward/minor sanyasi mathadhipati to administer the math and the properties attached to the math or specific endowment attached thereto. The appointment of guardian under Court of Wards Act as personal and property guardian would be for due administration of the math and for beneficial enjoyment, the Mahant has in the property or guardian under Hindu Guardianship and Maintenance Act, 1956 as and when it becomes applicable.