2005 (4) TMI 568 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 constitutionality. Hindu Ministers' committee nomination upheld.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978, affirming that the nomination of members to the Managing Committee by ... Whether the vesting of power in the 'Hindus' in the Council of Ministers to nominate the members of the Managing Committee could be held to violate Articles 25 and 26? Whether the Hindu Ministers in the Council of Ministers should have faith in God and Temple worship while nominating the members to the Managing Committee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom under Section 4 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act? Whether Hindu Ministers who are not believers in God and Temple Worship can, by reason of their not having faith in Hindu God and Temple worship, are disqualified from nominating the members of the Managing Committee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom, who should have faith in God and Temple worship, and must also make and subscribe an oath affirming their faith in God and Hindu Religion and believe in Temple worship? Issues Involved:1. Authority of Hindu Ministers to nominate members to the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee.2. Interpretation of the term 'Hindu' in the context of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978.3. Constitutional validity of Section 4 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978.4. Secularism and State control over temple management.Detailed Analysis:1. Authority of Hindu Ministers to Nominate Members:The appellants contended that Hindu Ministers in the Council of Ministers who owe allegiance to leftist (Marxist) ideology and do not believe in temple worship are disqualified from nominating members to the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee. They argued that such nominations violate Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, however, found that the management and administration of a temple are secular aspects and can be subject to State control. The High Court also noted that the Managing Committee should be representative of the religious denomination, but it is not necessary that the nominators should form part of it.2. Interpretation of the Term 'Hindu':The appellants argued that the term 'Hindu' should be construed as a person who believes in God and temple worship. The High Court, however, held that the term 'Hindu' is comprehensive and includes a wide range of beliefs and practices. The Court noted that the legislature did not qualify the term 'Hindu' in any manner and that it includes people of diverse opinions, philosophies, and beliefs. The Court also observed that the 1978 Act ensures that only persons who believe in temple worship are to be in the management of the temple.3. Constitutional Validity of Section 4:The appellants did not question the constitutionality of Section 4 of the 1978 Act but argued that it should be read in light of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The High Court upheld the validity of the 1978 Act, stating that it ensures that only persons who believe in temple worship are in the management of the temple. The Court also noted that the Act segregates religious matters from secular matters, with the former being entirely left in the hands of the 'Thanthri'. The Court found that the appellants failed to establish that there was a religious practice subsisting on the date of the Constitution's coming into force, which gave the denomination of temple worshippers the right to be in the Management Committee.4. Secularism and State Control:The Court emphasized that India is a secular country, and the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a theocratic State. The administration and management of a temple are secular activities, and the State can regulate them through appropriate legislation. The Court observed that the 1978 Act was enacted to ensure proper administration of the Guruvayoor Devaswom and that the power of nomination is vested in the Hindus among the Council of Ministers, who are statutorily bound to nominate persons fulfilling the criteria laid down in the Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978, is constitutionally valid and that the nomination of members to the Managing Committee by Hindu Ministers in the Council of Ministers does not violate Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that the management of the temple is a secular matter and that the Act ensures that only believers in temple worship are in the management of the temple.