1969 (3) TMI 104 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds constitutionality of provisions allowing removal of Mathadhipathi under Andhra Pradesh Act

Digyadarsan Rajendra Ramdassjivaru Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

The court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 46 and 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Sections 46 and 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966.2. Violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, and 31 of the Constitution.3. Power of the Commissioner to remove or suspend a Mathadhipathi.4. Right to practice and propagate religion and manage religious affairs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Sections 46 and 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966:The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Sections 46 and 47 of the Act. Section 46 allows the Commissioner to initiate proceedings for removing a Mathadhipathi on grounds such as unsound mind, breach of trust, or immoral life, among others. Section 47 deals with the administration of the Math during a temporary vacancy or suspension of the Mathadhipathi. The court held that these provisions are not unconstitutional as they provide reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public and ensure proper administration of the religious institution.2. Violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, and 31 of the Constitution:The petitioner argued that Sections 46 and 47 violate Articles 14 (equality before the law), 19(1)(f) (right to property), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), and 31 (right to property). The court found that the restrictions imposed by the Act are reasonable and in the interest of the general public. The court noted that the grounds for removal under Section 46 are specific and justified, and the procedural safeguards ensure that the proceedings before the Commissioner are quasi-judicial.3. Power of the Commissioner to Remove or Suspend a Mathadhipathi:The petitioner contended that the power given to the Commissioner to remove or suspend a Mathadhipathi under Section 46 infringes on the fundamental rights of the Mathadhipathi. The court held that the procedural change from court to Commissioner does not contravene Articles 14 or 19(1)(f), as the Commissioner's proceedings are quasi-judicial, and the Mathadhipathi has the right to challenge the removal order in court, with a further right of appeal to the High Court. The court also upheld the power of the Commissioner to suspend the Mathadhipathi during the inquiry, stating that it is necessary to prevent tampering with evidence or misappropriation of funds.4. Right to Practice and Propagate Religion and Manage Religious Affairs:The petitioner argued that the suspension and administrative control by the Commissioner violate Articles 25 and 26, which guarantee the right to practice and propagate religion and manage religious affairs. The court found no evidence that the petitioner was prohibited from practicing or propagating his religion. The court also held that Sections 46 and 47 do not empower the Commissioner to interfere with religious rites and ceremonies or take away the right of administration permanently. The temporary administration by the Assistant Commissioner during the suspension is justified due to the pending inquiry into serious charges against the petitioner.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the provisions of Sections 46 and 47 of the Act do not violate the constitutional rights of the petitioner. The restrictions imposed are reasonable and necessary for the proper administration of the Math. The court also directed that the petitioner be allowed to receive personal offerings (padakanukas) and maintain accounts, and the inquiry under Section 46 be concluded within three months. No order as to costs was made.