THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS vs SRI LAKSHMINDRA THIRTHA SWAMIAR OF SRI SHIRUR MUTT. on 16 April, 1954
In the case of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment on the 16th of April, 1954. The case was presided over by a bench consisting of Mahajan, Mehar Chand (CJ), Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam, Bhagwati, N.H., and Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama.
Facts of the Case
The case revolved around the Shirur Math, a religious institution in Udipi, South Kanara, reputed to have been founded by Shri Madhwacharya, a well-known exponent of dualistic theism in the Hindu religion. The petitioner, Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, was the head or Mathadhipati of the Shirur Math. The Math was heavily in debt, and the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, functioning under the Madras Hindu Religion Endowments Act (Act II of 1927), intervened and called upon the Swami to appoint a competent manager to manage the affairs of the institution. The Swami appointed an agent, but later terminated his agency due to alleged mismanagement. The Board then initiated proceedings for the settlement of a scheme for the administration of the Math’s affairs.
Issues Raised
The Swami challenged the constitutional validity of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (the New Act), which replaced the earlier legislation. He contended that the law regulating the framing of a scheme interfering with the management of the Math and its affairs by the Mathadhipati conflicted with the provisions of articles 19(1)(f), 25, 26, and 27 of the Constitution and was hence void under article 13. He also alleged that the provisions of the Act were discriminatory in character and offended against article 15 of the Constitution.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
The court held that sections 21, 30(2), 31, 55, 56, and 63 to 69 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 were ultra vires articles 19(1)(f), 25, and 26 of the Constitution of India. The court also ruled that section 76(1) of the Act, which related to the payment of an annual contribution, was void as it was a tax and not a fee, and therefore beyond the legislative competence of the Madras State Legislature.
The court further observed that the word “property” as used in article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution should be given a liberal and wide connotation and should be extended to all well-recognized types of interest which have the insignia or characteristics of proprietary right. The court also discussed the scope of articles 25 and 26, and explained the meaning of the term “Mathadhipati” and religion.
The court concluded that the imposition under section 76(1) of the Act, although it was a tax, did not come within the latter part of article 27 because the object of the contribution under the section was not the fostering or preservation of the Hindu religion or any denomination under it but the proper administration of religious trusts and institutions wherever they exist.
The judgment in this case has had a significant impact on the interpretation of the Constitution’s provisions relating to religious and charitable endowments, and continues to be a guiding precedent in such matters.