TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules Moolky temple public, permits exclusion of non-members from worship</h1> <h3>SRI VENKATARAMANA DEVARU Versus STATE OF MYSORE</h3> The Court held that the Sri Venkataramana Temple at Moolky is a public temple under Act V of 1947, designated for Gowda Saraswath Brahmins. It was ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the Sri Venkataramana Temple at Moolky is a temple as defined in Section 2(2) of Madras Act V of 1947.2. Whether the temple is a denominational temple.3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to exclude all Hindus other than Gowda Saraswath Brahmins from entering the temple for worship under Article 26(b) of the Constitution.4. Whether Section 3 of the Act is valid under Article 25(2)(b) and if it prevails over the right conferred by Article 26(b).5. Whether the modifications made by the High Court in favor of the appellants are legal and proper.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the Sri Venkataramana Temple at Moolky is a temple as defined in Section 2(2) of Madras Act V of 1947:The contention was that the temple is a private one and thus outside the purview of the Act. However, this plea was not raised in the pleadings. The plaintiffs only alleged that the temple was for the benefit of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins. The Court noted that the temple was admitted to be within the definition as amended by Act XIII of 1949, which includes institutions for the benefit of a section of the public. The Court declined to entertain the contention that the temple is private, holding it to be a public temple within the operation of Act V of 1947.2. Whether the temple is a denominational temple:The Courts found that the temple was initially founded for the benefit of Gowda Saraswath Brahmins. The Subordinate Judge held that public endowments and participation by all classes of Hindus indicated a dedication to the public. However, the High Court and the Supreme Court concluded that the temple remained a denominational institution for the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins. The evidence showed that the community had specific religious practices and that the temple was managed by their religious leader, the head of the Kashi Mutt.3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to exclude all Hindus other than Gowda Saraswath Brahmins from entering the temple for worship under Article 26(b) of the Constitution:The Court held that matters of religion under Article 26(b) include practices regarded by the community as part of its religion, including the exclusion of persons from entering the temple. The ceremonial law pertaining to Hindu temples dictates who may enter and participate in worship, and these are matters of religion. Thus, if determined solely by Article 26(b), Section 3 of Act V of 1947 would be invalid as it infringes on this right.4. Whether Section 3 of the Act is valid under Article 25(2)(b) and if it prevails over the right conferred by Article 26(b):The Court examined Articles 25 and 26, noting that Article 25(2)(b) allows laws that open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. The Court concluded that public institutions include those founded for sections of the public, thus including denominational temples. The Court applied the rule of harmonious construction, holding that Article 26(b) must be read subject to Article 25(2)(b). Thus, Section 3 of the Act is valid and prevails over the right conferred by Article 26(b).5. Whether the modifications made by the High Court in favor of the appellants are legal and proper:The High Court had reserved certain religious ceremonies and occasions exclusively for the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins, which the Supreme Court found to be valid. The evidence established these were denominational rights, and the modifications did not substantially reduce the public's right to worship. The Court held that the decree of the High Court struck a just balance between the rights of the Hindu public under Article 25(2)(b) and the denomination's rights under Article 26(b).Conclusion:Both the appeal and the application for special leave to appeal were dismissed. The modifications made by the High Court were upheld as they balanced the rights under Articles 25(2)(b) and 26(b). The parties were to bear their own costs, with the appellants' costs to be taken from the temple funds.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
