Holding

Sections 50 to 55 of the Act do not offend Articles 25 or 26 and are constitutionally valid.

Summary

The petitioners, representing several maths, challenged the constitutionality of Sections 50 to 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, alleging that the provisions interfered with the religious freedom of the Mathadhipathi under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The State argued that the provisions merely regulated the secular administration of math properties, the maintenance of accounts of Padakanukas, the removal and nomination of Mathadhipathi, and the framing of schemes to prevent mismanagement. The Court examined the definition of "Mathadhipathi" and held that his role as a trustee of the math’s property is a secular function, even though it is connected with religious activities. It further held that the statutory requirements to keep accounts, the procedure for removal, the qualifications for nomination, and the Commissioner’s power to frame schemes are permissible under Articles 25(2)(a) and 26(b). Consequently, the Court found none of the challenged sections to be violative of the Constitution and dismissed the writ petitions.

Issues considered

Whether Sections 50 to 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, violate Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
Whether the regulation of the Mathadhipathi’s administration of property, maintenance of accounts, removal, nomination and scheme‑framing constitute impermissible interference with religious freedom.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987s. 50, s. 51, s. 52, s. 53, s. 54, s. 55
Constitution of Indias. Article 25, s. Article 26

Subjects

religious freedomArticle 25Article 26Hindu religious institutionsMathadhipathiendowmentsproperty administrationsecular regulationremoval of Mahantnomination of religious headscheme framing

Judgment

SRI SRI SRI LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU AND ORS. ETC. ETC. A
v.
... STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR .

-
JANUARY 24, 1996

(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

Andhra Pradesh Chan'table and Hindu Religious Institrltions and En-
dowments Act. I987/Agam Shastra Pandit Se1vice Rules, 1987.
'f

Ss.2(16) 2(29), 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55-Mathadhipathi- C
Padakanukas or other personal gifts made to Mathadhipathi as head of
institution-Managenient and adn1inistration of n1ath prope1ties-R.emoval of
Mathadhipathi-Filling of temporary and pennanent vacancies in the office
of mathadhipathi-Nomination of mathadhipathi-Power of Commissioner
to frame scheme of administration of math-Held, right of mathadhipathi to
administer and manage property endowed to math and 1ights of similar D
character are legal rights-Mathadhipathi is neither hereditary t111stee, nor a
t111stee as envisaged by s.2( 16) and s.2(29) but he is a tnLStee of math in
relation to property of math or specific endowment attached to math-Matters
relating to adniinistration of niath properties are not n1atters of religion but
are secular activities though connected with religion enjoined on E
mahant-Mathadhipathi incuning disqualifications enumerated in clauses
(d} to (i) of s.53 is liable to be removed-Suspension of a mathadhipathi is
a necessa1y and reasonable pmt of procedure for removal of mathadhipathi-
Role of Commissioner in nomination of mathadhipathi under s.54 is mini-
mai-Power of Commissioner to frame scheme under s.55 is not abso/ut~
None of ss.50 to 55 offend Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution of India. F

Constitution of India, 1950 :

Articles 25 and 26-Freedom to practice and propagate re/igion-
Freedom to manage religious affairs-Sections 50 to 55 of Andhra Pradesh G
Charitable and Hindu Religious lllstitutions and Endowments Act, •
1987-Held, are not violative of Articles 25 or 26-Administration and ·
management of math/propmies are secular activities-Fastening an obliga-
tion 011 Mathadhipathi to maintain accounts of Padakanukas and other
personal gifts made to mathadhipathi does not amount to inteiference with
religion. H
929
\
;r
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A The petitioners file<i the present writ petitions under Article 32 of
the Constitution challenging the Validity of Ss.SO to SO of the Andhra
Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments
Act, 1987. These provisions deal with maintaining regular accounts or

B
receipts of Padakanukas and other gifts made to the Mathadhipathi as
head of the math, removal of Mathadhipathi, qualifications of mathad-
hipathi filling of temporary and permanent vacancies in the office of
mathadhipathi nomination of mathadhipathi and power of Commissioner
to frame scheme of administration of the Math. Petitioners case was that
-
the maths represented by them were not public endowments but were
private trusts; the expenses for the maintenance of the maths and worship
C in the temple were being carried on solely from the Padakanukas given by
the devotees; mathadhipathi being the spiritual head to il.iport religious
instructions and he not being a trustee, his appointment was purely a
religious act and not a sec.ular act, nomination of mathadhipathi was
based upon usage and customs of the respective maths; and therefore, the
D provisions of Ss.SO to SS of the Act attempting to regulate these matters
and vesting power in the Commissioner in respect of these matters .;- ..
amounted to interference with religious tenets of Hindu religion and were
thus violative of Articles 2S and 26 of the Constitution of India.

On behalf of the State, it was contended that provisions of Ss.SO to
E SS of the Act regulate proper management and administration of the math,
the receipt of income, manner of use and ac<Juntability of Padakanukas
and other personal gifts made to the Mathadhipathi, the power to super-
vise and safeguard the interests of the maths being a secular function was
entrusted by law to the Commissioner; the provisions were enacted to
F avoid indelible effect on the administration of math properties and to
safeguard the interest of maths which otherwise would get affected adver-
sely due to protracted litigation for years; as regards the nomination of
Mathadhipathi, Agama Shastra Pandit Service Rules, 1987 provided
guidance In that behalf and the Commissioner would receive advice of the
Agam Shastra Pandit in the matters of religion, including usages, customs
G of Sampradayams observed by the religious institution; the Act and the
F
Rules provided sufficient safeguard in this respect and the Commissioner +- •
would not exercise his powers arbitrarily or unreasonably, and bis
decisions would be subject to correction in an appropriate proceeding.

H Dismissing the writ petition, this Court
--{
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE 931

HELD : 1. None of the Sections 50 to 55 of the Andhra Pradesh A
Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987
offends Article 25 or 26 of the Constitution. Chapter V of the Act does not
per se attempt to regulate the propagation or preaching of the tenets by
Mahant or of the math or religious beliefs to which the math is founded
or it seeks to propagate. [964-H; 948-H)
B
2.1. Section 47 defines "mathadhipathi" to mean any person in whom
"the administration and management of a math or specific endowment
attached to a math are vested." The definition of mathadhipathi for the
I
purpose of the Act is expressly confined only in relation to the administra-
tion and management of a math or specified endowment attached to the C
math and vested in him as mathadhipathi. In the concept of mathad-
hipathi both the elements of power to hold property and duty to property
maintain it are blended and neither can be detached from the other. The
Mahant, therefore, as the spiritual head of the math is entrusted with the
administration and management of the math or the specific endowment. D
His right to administer and manage the property endowed to the math and
other rights of similar character are vested in the office of the Mahan!
and, therefore, they are legal rights attached to the management and the
administration of the property endowed to the math. [947-F-H)

2.2. Mathadhipathi being an aesthetic sanyasi, question of hereditary E
succession to the office of mathadhipathi does not arise. He is, neither
hereditary trustee nor a trustee in the sense envisaged by s.2(29) or s.2(16)
of the Act. But in jctaposition, his position as Mathadhipathi is of a trustee
of the property of the math or specific endowment attached to it of which
he is the head and holds the property as head of the institution as a trustee
with beneficial enjoyment over the math properties for the propagation of F
the religious tenants and the philosophy applicable to the math or specific
endowment and Hindu Dharma. [949-F-H)

H.H. Sudhu11dra Tltirtha Swamiar v. Commissioner for Hindu
Religious & Charitable E11dowments, Mysore, [1963l Supp. 2 SCR 302 and G
Kaki11ada A11nadan Samajan Etc. v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious &
Charitable E11dowme11ts, Hyderabad & Ors., [1977) 2 SCR 878, relied on.

2.3. Fastening an obligation on mathadhipathi to maintain accounts
of the receipts of Padakanukas as personal gifts made to the mathad·
hipathi and to see that the funds are properly utilis_ed for the purposes of H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A the math in accordance with its objects and propagation of Hindu Dharma
does not amount to interference with religion. Questions relating to ad·
ministration of properties of math or specific endowment are not matters
of religion under Article 26(b); they are secular activitil!s though connected
with religion enjoined on Mahan!. (964-A-B; CJ

B 2.4. Section 50 of the Act requires the mathadhipathi to maintain
accounts in the manner prescribed therein which is a secular activity on
the part of a mathadhipathi. The intervention of the legislature in that
behalf is in the interest of the math itself. He is, therefore, enjoined to
maintain accounts in the regular course of the administration and main~
C tenance of the math. Operation of Section 50 is, therefore, a permissible
statutory intervention under Articles 25(2)(a) and 26(b) and (d) of the
Constitution. (964-D-E]

3.1. A mathadhipathi is liable to action under s.51 of the Act and the
D Commissioner would be entitled to initiate proceedings and remove a
mathadhipathi or a trustee of a specific endowment on his satisfying
anyone or all the conditions enumerated in clauses (d) to (i) or on
mathadhipathi's incurring disqualifications enumerated in clauses (d) (i)
or (a) to (c). Section 51 provides a complete machinery for removal of an
erring Mahant adjudging him to be not a fit person to remain mathad·
E hipathi. It further provides complete procedure and machinery to the
charged Mahant/trustee to disprove the charge and in case of removal
from office, he has right of instituting suit and preferring appeal to High
Court to have it corrected and legality of the order of removal, tested with .
adequate procedural safeguards. The validity of the grounds for removal
F have already been upheld and validity of s.51 (1) is, therefore, no longer res
integra. (952-F; 955-B-C; 953-C]

Digvadarsa11 Rajendra Ramdassji Varn v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Anr., (1970] 1 SCR 103, relied on.

G 3.2. The suspension of a mathadhipathi, during inquiry is a neces·
sary and reasonable part of the procedure for removal of mathadhipathi.
It is essential, therefore, in these circumstances to make a provision for
suspending him till the enquiry c~ncludes and an order is made either
exonerating or directing his removal. The action under s.51 does not
H infringe Article 25(1) or 26(b) or 26(d). (953-D-F]
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU v. STATE 933

4.1. By operation of sub-section (2) of Section 53, the qualifications A
for a mahant are prescribed. If a Mahan! has already been removed, and
if self-same person is nominated as a mathadhipathi under Section 51(2),
it would be obvioas that the Commissioner cannot recognise such a
nomination and grant permission to him as Mathadhipathi. He would be
entitled to call nomination afresh. Obviously, recognition of the Commis-
B
sioner required under sub-section (1) of Section 53 only regulates in that
behalf, and the when he is duly nominated as per the qualifications
prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 53. The provisions, therefore, are
intended to avoid needless protracted litigation over succession adversely
affecting due administration and maintenance of the math, to safeguard
the interest of the math and due fulfilment of the objects for which the C
math or specific endowment is created or established. [953-F-H; 954-A]

4.2. The Commissioner who is the head of the Endowment Depart-
ment is a high ranking officer with wide administrative experience and is
expected to act fairly and reasonably to effectuate the purpose of Chapter D
V of the Act. It can be accepted that such a high ranking officer would call
to his aid necessary and incidental or ancillary powers only to given effect
to the purpose of the Act. He would act reasonably, objectively and fairly
If he commits any excess or acts unreasonably, the individual act is liable
to be questioned and dealt with appropriately according to law. But for
that ground Section 53 cannot be declared ultra vires. [954-B-D] E

5.1. Role of the Commissioner in the nomination of Mathadhipathi
under s.54 is minimal; but nomination ipso facto cannot be recognised by
the Commissioner. By operation of sub-section (1) with a non obstante
clause, viz., 11 subject to provisions of Section 53", the basic qualifications p
required for a person to be nominated as Mathadhipathi are enumerated in
sub-section (2) of Section 53. The Commissioner is guided by Pandit Rules
under which the duly competent person assists him in convening the meet-
ing of Mahants having similar Sampardaya for nomination of a Mathad-
hipathi. Suitable procedure has been made in G.O.M.S. No 218 Revenue
dated March 17, 1988 known as Administration of Math 1987. Proviso to G
clause (v) ofsu~-rule (2) of Rule 3 make the position clear. [956-E; 957-E-Fl

5.2. The Commissioner should test the nomination but not interpose
with the nomination, nor interdict a duly qualified person as Mathad-
hipathi. The role of the Commissioner in that behalf, therefore, is only in H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A the nature of an intervener in the nomination duly testing whether the
nominated person is a fit person to hold the office of Mahan! and to
manage and administer the math according to the tenets, Sampardayams,
usages, customs and philosophy of the math and the properties attached
to it. [958-D-E]
B
5.3. It cannot be said that the result of the provision of s.54 would
be to reduce the Mahan! to the position of a servant. No doubt, the
Commissioner is invested with powers to pass orders, but orders can be
passed only for the purpose specified in the section and not for inter-
ference with the right of the Mahant as are sanctioned by usage or for
c lowering his position as the spiritual head of the institution. The saving
provisions contained in Section 91 of the Act makes the position CJUite
clear. An apprehension that the powers conferred by this section may be
abused in individual cases does not make the provision itself bad or invalid
in law. The ratio with equiforce is applicable to the context in which the
D validity of the provision is to be teSted. [957-B-D]

The Conunissioner, Hindu Religious Endownients, Madras v. Sli
Lakshmindra 17iiltha Swamiar of S1i Shintr Math, [1954] SCR 1005, relied
on.
E
6.1. The power of the Commissioner to frame a scheme under Section
55 of the Act is not absolute but is conditioned upon reasonable belief on
the basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner or the
Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the math or suo niotu;
but in later event he should have material on record for entertaining a
F reasonable belief that the affairs of the math and its properties are being
mismanaged or that funds are misappropriated or that the mathadhipathi
grossly neglected in performing his duties. Prior enquiry in that behalf is
duly made in accordance with the Rules prescribed thereunder. [958-F-G]

G 6.2. If the Mahan! resorts to devices to convert the income of the
institution or of the funds or properties thereof into personal gifts made
to him, that would be improper conduct for which he would be liable to be
removed under s.51. The legislature by enacting that section did not
attempt to re-enact Section 55 to bring the obligation of the Mahan!, in a
H different garb. The same ratio applies to the present case. [963-D-E]
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE[KRAMASWAMY,J.] 935

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 867 of A
1987 Etc. Etc.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

K. Parasaran, R. Venugopal Reddy, Dr. V. Gaurishankar, P.P. Rao,
A. Raghuvir, H.S. Gururaja Rao, M.N. Krishnamani, Ms. Shyamala Pappu, B
and A.K. Ganguli, Ms. Mrindula Ray Bharadwaj, Dr. Suman! Bhardwarj,
Mohan Parasaran V. Balachandran, P.N. Ramalingam, A.D.N. Rao, T.V.
Ratanam, Subodh Markandeya, Ajay Singh, Mrs. Chitra Markandeya, Sunil
Kumar Jain for Jain Hansaria & Co., G. Prabhakar, B. Kanta Rao, S.
Rajappa, Mrs. H. Wahi, R. Ashok, B. Parthasarathi, K. Rajendra C
Chowdhary, Y. Prabhakarara Rao, M. Dorairaj V. Balaji, A.T.M. Sampath,
A. Subba Rao, A. Raghunath, K. Swami, Ms. Thilagavathya, R.D.B. Raju,
N. Ganpathy, K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha Nair, C. Balasubramaniam,
Adinarayana Raju, T.V.S.N. Chari (NP), Mr. P.K. Pillai, T.V. Ratnam,
G.Venkatesh Rao, Ms Sadhana Ramachandran, M.R. Krishnamurthi,
Pramod Sharma, R. C. Pathak and Sunil Kr. Jain for the appearing D
parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. RAMASWAMY, J. The petitioners seek to question the vires of
Sections 2 (22), 2 (27) and Sections 47 to 55 in Chapter V of the Andhra E
Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act,
1987 (30 of 1987) (for short, "the Act"). But at the time of hearing Shri K.
Parasaran, their learned senior counsel, restricted his arguments to the
validity of Sections 50 to 55. The petitioner in the first writ petition is
Peetadhipati of the institution known as "Mumukshu Jana Maha Peetham" F
(for short, 'Peetham') in Pada Muktevi village of Mowa Manda! in Krishna
District of Andhra Pradesh. It was averred therein that the Peetham was
founded by one Seetharama Yetendrulu an advocate in the year 1938 and
he became a sanyasi. His main philosophy was equality and universality of
all religions faiths, good character, gratuitous conduct and devotion to
God, far more important than mere rituals. He formed Mumukshu Jana G
Samajam in 1950. He published several books under that banner. He was
running a Telugu magazine by name Mumukshuvu. He started school for
the children. He was managing a temple of Lakshmipati Swamy. The
devotees collected funds for all those projects by voluntary donation and
the amount given through bhiksha (seeitig alms). He donated his ancestral H
936 SUPREME COURT REP OR TS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A house and purchased 4 acres of land with the aid of Padakanukas (personal
gifts). He died in 1972 and nominated one of his disciples as successor and
thereafter with the aid of Padakanukas from thousands of disciples temples
were constructed by the first petitioner and were being managed with the
Padakanukas given by the devotees. It is not a public endowment but a
private trust. The expenses for the maintenance of the math and worship
B
in the temple are being carried on solely from the Padakanukas given by
the devotees to reverence which the disciples gave to the Mathadhipathi.
It is, therefore, clear that the above provisions are ultra vires, in their
application to the petitioner math. Similar contentions have been raised in
all other writ petitions. By their very admission, the petitioner's institution
C is a math and being managed from personal gifts etc. made by devotees
and collected by disciples.

Shri Parasaran, the learned senior counsel, contended that Section
48 of the Act excludes application of Sections 18 to 22, 25 and 28 of
D 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 mathad-
hipathi irrespective of the fact whether mathadhipathi falls under the
definition of 11hereditary trustee11 or not.

E Mathadhipathi 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. Appoint-
ment of a Mathadhipathi is not a secular act. Mathadhipathi, indisputably
not being a trustee, his appointment is purely a religious act. The nomina-
F tion of the mathadhipathi 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 mathadhipathi by· the
Commissioner, an officer of the Government, who does· not have
knowledge of usages or practices prevalent in the relevant math. Imposition
G of such conditions is an interference with freedom of religion and power
to manage religious affairs. Removal of Mahan! 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
H Constitution. The learned counsel elaborated the contentions arguing that
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE[K.RAMASWAMY,J.) 937

the procedure for nomination of the mathadhipathi, convening of a meeting A
with mathadhipathi of other maths of similar Sampardayams as provided
under Section 54 (2) of the Act, are repugnant to the usage and Sampar-
dayams 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 Sampradayams unless one is specific endowment or subor-
B
dinate of the main math. Though several maths may propagate the same
religious philosophy, each math will have its own distinct and different
usage or Sampradayams. 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 Vashis- c
tha dwaita philosophy of Shriramanujacharya have their own
Sampradayams. Therefore, the Act attempting to regulate nomination of a
Mathadhipathi at the recommendation of other mathadhipathis and its
acceptance by the Commissioner, or filling up similarly of temporary
vacancies in the office of Mathadhipathi, are but naked interference with D
religious tenets of Hindu religion.

The Act does not provide any guidelines for things to be done in
Chapter V of the Act. The rules made by subordinate legislation cannot
independently provide guidelines when the Act is silent as to the essential
guidelines. In such a situation, the Act itself is unconstitutional for exces- E
s.ive delegation and provisions of Section 53 (2) (a) to (d) are not matters

' . on which any secular authority is competent to decide as to whether the
Commissioner will recognise a person nominated as Mahant who could
have other qualifications like Acharya, Anusthana, Niyama, Bhakti etc. The
best person to adjudge the requisite qualifications is the religious head F
himself or the disciples of such particular math or denomination and not
by any other secular authority not even religious head of another math.
Religion being a matter of particular faith, the persons having faith of
particular denomination is to decide as to who will be their mathadhipathi
and to whom they will disciples. It is not for the secular judgment or any G
other authority or even by making rules or even making provisions for
testing his knowledge of Hindu religion, scriptures, Sampardayams etc.
with the help of persons without such knowledge. In fact, in a math a
celibate appointed as mathadhipathi would lead the life of a celibate. He
may be nominated at any age, say at even the age of 7 years. He would
learn scriptures in a traditional way in the math itself. A test to be H
938 SUPREME COURT REP ORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A conducted by Pandits to permit him to be appointed by a secular authority
as the mathadhipathi is incongruous or repugnant to the Sampardayam. A
mathadhipathi can be removed only on grounds which are secular in nature
like some of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 51 (l)(i). A secular
authority cannot exercise any power at any stage of appointment to a
religious office. A mathadhipathi cannot be removed by secular authority
B except for secular reasons which must be just, fair and reasonable relatable
to one or other of the grounds mentioned in Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution. The question of approval or disapproval of a nomination of
a mathadhipathi or removal of him on the ground of not having knowledge
of the scriptures etc., would amount to interference with the religion. The
C direction to maintain regular accounts of receipts of Padakanukas would
be no interference with religious duties; and so, it is unconstitutional,
though such a provision for Padakanukas offered to him as head of the
math may be valid; but to the extent of Padakanukas given as gifts personal
to the mathadhipathi, the sections are violative of Article 25(1).
D
He further contends that by operation of Section 48, the applicability
of Section 29, which relates to appointment and continuance of executive
officers, also stands applied to the maths by which the Act interferes with
Mahant's right to manage the math. The power to frame the scheme nnder
Section 55 is given to the Commissioner and he appoints the executive
E officer to manage the math, which is also an interference with the manage-
ment of the math, which act is inherent in the office of the mathadhipathi
as heal: of the institution. The provision for transfer of the office holders
and servants of the math provided in Section 39 is unconstitutional. Most '
of the employees of the maths may be disciples themselves; their appoint-
ment, removal, dismissal etc. being matters of administration by the
F
mathadhipathi for due management of the math, interference by Commis-
sioner in that behalf is also ultra vires Article 25.

Shri P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel for the State, resisted these
contentions. He conceded that though the definition of a trustee in Section
G 2(29) includes mathadhipathi insofar as his right to administer and manage
the properties of the math are concerned the Act does not impinge upon
his right as a spiritual head of math. The abolition of hereditary rights by
Section 16 does not include the right of mathadhipathi. Mathadhipathi in
most cases is nominated by his predecessor. Mathadhipathi is a sanyasi who
H has renounced worldly affairs and has severed his ties with natural family.
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE[KRAMASWAMYJ.] 939

Therefore, is no scope for hereditary succession to the office of a mathad- A
hipathi. The hereditary trustee defined under Section 2(16) and abolished
by Section 16 docs not, therefore, include mathadhipathi. The concept of
hereditary trustee defined in the predecessor Act 17 of 1966 is the same
as in the Act. Section 16, therefore, has no application to a mathadhipathi.
B
Qualifications and disqualifications of a mathadhipathi 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 mathadhipathi since mathadhipathi is a single person. C
Section 22 has no application, since Section 51 deals with filling up of
t_emporary vacancies of mathadhipathi and Section 53 deals with filling up
of permanent vacancy in the office of mathadhipathi. 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 mathadhipathi, which D
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 Mathadhipathi (spiritual head) by the Commissioner under E
Section 53 was made a condition precedent for succession to the office of
the mathadhipathi only to ensure that a person possessed of the qualifica-
tions prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 53, and one who does not
suffer from any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-section (1) of
Section 51, alone would succeed to the office of mathadhipathi. The object F
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 protected 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 G
that he would reasonably exercise all the powers to grant permission. It
would imply that the Commissioner would call in aid all 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 H
•
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A Commissioner should have implied powers. In case where the Commis-
sioner 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 mathadhipathi of other maths having the same Sampardayams. An
agama shastra pandit working in the office of the Commissioner, Endow-
ment Department, advises the Commissioner in the matters of religion
B including usages, customs or Sampardayams observed by a religious institu-
tion. Rules, viz., Agama Shastra Pandit Service Rules, 1987 (for short,
"Pandit Rules") made in that behalf provide guidance. If no objection to
the nomination of a mathadhipathi is raised by any person, or where the
Commissioner does not have any other adverse- material, or where the
c nominee does not suffer from any disqualification, he does not withhold
permission for succession as a mathadhipathi. Only when Dbjections 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 mathadhipathi or both and then take a decision. Rule 5 of
D the Pandit Rules provides necessary guidelines in that behalf. The Com-
missioner is not expected to exercise his powers under Section 53 (1)
arbitrarily or unreasonably. If he so does in an individual case, the correct-
ness thereof may be quashed in an appropriate proceeding, according to
the prescribed procedure.

E The power to supervise and safeguard the interests of the maths is a
secular function which has by law been entrusted to the Commissioner. In
a given case, if he exercises the power in a manner objectionable to the
incumbent the same would be amenable to correction in an appropriate
forum. The law conferring such a power cannot be faulted. The provisions
F in Sections 52, 53, 54 and the Rules made thereunder would provide
sufficient guidelines which postulate an enquiry. The administration of
mathadhipathi Rules, 1987 would supplement the provisions in Sections 53
and 54. Justice Challa Kondaiah Commission pointed out misuse and abuse
of the office by some mathadhipathi who used math properties as
Padakunukas (personal gifts) for their personal gain and siphoned the
G income for personal luxuries or misused for wine or women etc. The Act
only regulates and monitors math properties and income for its utilisation
for religions purposes. The Rules give guidance and full freedom to the
mathadhipathi for use of offerings personally given as Padakanukas to him
for religious purpose and for his maintenance, consistent with his status
H according to Samparadayams or usage or custom of the said math. The
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY,J.] 941

Commissioner is invested with the power only for secular purpose specified A
, in the section. It does not amount to interference with the rights of the
mathadhipathi as spiritual head sanctioned by usage or custom nor does it
t~nd to lower his position as spiritual head of the institution. The saving
provisions contained in Section 91 of the Act make the matter more clear.
The apprehension that the powers conferred on the Commissioner may be B
misused or abused is unfounded. Even if it has so happened, the provisions
cannot be struck down or declared invalid on that apprehended premises.

There is no time limit fixed for nomination of a successor. The time
limit mentioned in Section 54 (1) is only for intimation of the nomination
by the mathadhipathi to the Commissioner. 90 days' time given thereunder C
is a fairly long period for such a intimation and it is a reasonable period.
It would enable the Commissioner to consider all relevant aspects and to
take a decision of his granting permission for recognition of the mathad-
hipathi.
~ D
Section 54(2) governs the case of nomination by previous mathad-
hipathi and when a mathadhipathi is not available to nominate his succes-
sor, a meeting of the mathadhipathis of other maths and the disciples of
the math to decide the question of successor would arise. Rule 8 of
Mathadhipathi Rules is relatable to Section 54(2). Rule 3(2)(iii) of the E
Rules, though speaks of minor giving consent, should be understood
reasonably. A consent by a minor would mean a consent of a guardian on
behalf of the minor known under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,
1956 or property guardian appointed by a competent court. Section 52
confers, therefore, only limited power to meet one of the contingencies
enumerated therein, viz., occurrence of a temporary vacancy or existence
F
of a dispute regarding successor or successor being a minor without there
being a fit or suitable person to act on his behalf. In such contingencies
the claim of disciples, if any, would be duly taken into consideration. The
provisions in Section 52, therefore, are not invalid. Section 47 of 1966 Act
is similar to Section 52 of the Act which has already been upheld by this G
Court. The executive officer is appointed under Section 29 only when a
scheme has been framed under Section 55; that too, when the Commis-
- sioner is satisfied from the reports submitted to him that the properties of
the math are mismanaged or misappropriated or that the Mahan! grossly
neglected his power as the mathadhipathi. The scheme framed would be H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 1 S.C.R.

A subject to appeal. It would be framed only after making an enquiry. It is a
secular act.

Section 45 of the predecessor Act of 1966 did not require the
mathadhipathi to maintain regular accounts of receipts of personal gifts or
other gifts made to the mathadhipathi as head of the math. He was allowed
B 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 mathad-
C hipathi to render accounts of the gifts received by mathadhipathis. The
provision, therefore, was made only for accountability of the receipt of such
gifts by the mathadhipathis. In view of the admission that the gifts made to
the mathadhipathi for the math are accountable, the Mahant is liable to
account for the same. The personal gifts also would be required to be
D accounted only to the extent of their receipt and not now they are spent
by him; he has full freedom to spend for religious purposes etc. After
'G,
deletion of Articles 19(1)(!) and 31 from Part III of the Constitution by
44th Constitution (Amendment) Act, the law down by this Court that the
mathadhipathi had the fundamental right to property no longer is available
to him. Therefore, he is required to maintain regular accounts of the
E 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 mathadhipathi 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
F
of the mathadhipathi 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 is argument in that behalf is only of academic interest.
G
Sections 50 to 55 of the Act read as under :

"50. Padakanukas and other gifts:- (1) The Mathadhipathi shall
maintain regular accounts of receipts of padakanukas or other
H personal gifts of property made to him as the head of the Math
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE[K.RAMASWAMY,J.] 943

and he shall be entitled to spend, at his discretion for any purpose A
which is connected with the objects of the math and propagation
of Hindu Dharma.

(2) Any padakanuka or other personal gift which remains un-
disposed of during the life time of the mathadhipathi shall devolve
on the math as its assets. B

(3) In the case of gifts of property or money made to the mathad-
hipathi not as personal gifts but as gifts intended for the benefit
of the math, the Mathadhipathi, shall keep accounts of all receipts
and disbursements of such gifts and shall cause such accounts to C
be produced before the Commissioner or any person authorised
by him in this behalf whenever so required.

Explanation : Any gift of property or money made to that mathad-
hipathi shall, unless it is specified by the donor as padakanuka or
personal gift, be presumed to be a gift intended for the benefit of D
the math.

"51. Removal of Mathadhipathi - (1) The Commissioner may suo
n1otu or on an application of two or more persons having interest
initiate proceedings for removing a mathadhipathi or a trustee of E
a specific endowment attached to a math, if he -

(a) is of unsound mind;

..... (b) is suffering from any physical or mental defect or infirmity
which renders him unfit to be a mathadhipathi or such trustee; F

(c) has ceased to profess the Hindu religion or the tenets of the
math;

(d) has been sentenced for any offence involving more turpitude,
such sentence not having been reversed; G
(e) is guilty of breach of trust or mis-appropriation in respect of
any of the properties of the math;

(f) commits persistent and wilful default in the exercise of his
powers or performance of his functions under the Act; H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A (g) violates any of the restrictions imposed or practices enjoined
by the custom, usage or the tenets of the math, in relation to his
personal conduct, such as celibacy, renunciation and the like;

(h) leads an immoral life; or

B (i) fails or ignores to implement the principles set out in clause
(17) of Section 2.

(2) The commissioner shall frame a charge on any of the grounds '
specified in sub-section (1) against the mathadhipathi or trustee
concerned and given him an opportunity of meeting such charge,
c of testing the evidence adduced and of adducing evidence in his
favour. After considering the evidence adduced and other material
before him, the Commissioner may by order exonerate the mathad-
hipathi or trustee, or remove him. Every such order shall state the
charge framed against the mathadhipathi or the trustee his ex-
D planation and the finding on such charge together with the reasons
therefor :

Provided that in the case of a math or specific endowment
attached thereto whose annual income exceeds rupees one lakh,
the order of removal passed by the Commissioner against the
E mathadhipathi or trustee shall not take effect unless it is confirmed
by the Government.

F
(3) Pending the passing of an order under sub-section (2); the
Commissioner may suspend the mathadhipathi or the trustee; .... -
(4) (a) Any mathadhipathi or trustee ~ggrieved by an order passed
by the Commissioner under Sub-section (2), may within ninety days
from the date of receipt of such order, institute a suit in the court
against such order;

(b) An appeal shall lie to the High Court within ninety from the
G
date of a decree or order of the Court in such suit.

52. Filling of temporary vacancies in the office of the mathadhipathi:
(1) Where a temporary vacancy occurs in the office of the mathad-
hipathi and there is a dispute in regard to the right of succession
H to such Office, or where the mathadhipathi is a minor and has no
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU v. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY,J.] 945

guardian fit and willing to act as guardian, or where the mathad- A
hipathi is under suspension under sub-section (3) of Section 51,
the Commissioner shall, if he is satisfied after making an inquiry
in this behalf that an arrangement for the administration of the
math and its endowment or of the specific endowment, as the case
may be is necessary, make such arrangement as he thinks fit until
B
the disability of the mathadhipathi ceases or another mathad-
hipathi succeeds to the office, as the case may be.

(b) In making any such arrangement, the Commissioner shall have
due regard to the claims, if any, of the disciples of the math.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect anything in
c
. the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Court of Wards Act, 1902 and
the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Court of Wards Act, 1350
F.

53. Filling of pennanent vacancies of the office of mathadhipathi : D
(1) Where a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the Mathad-
hipathi, by reason of death or resignation or on account of his
removal under Section 51 or otherwise the person next entitled to
succeed according to the rule of succession laid down by the
founder, or where no such rule is laid down, according to the usage
or custom of the math, or where no such usage or custom exists E
according to the law of succession, for the time being in force, shall
with the permission of the Commissioner succeed to the office of
the Mathadhipathi .
•
"53(2) A person for succession to the office of the mathadhipathi
under sub-section (1) shall possess the following qualif.cations, F
namely:

(a) basic knowledge of the Hindu Religion and philosophy;

(b) knowledge of the relevant scriptures and sampradaya to which
the math belongs; G
(c) capacity to impart the knowledge and preach the tenets of the
math to the disciples;

(d) religious temperament with implicit faith in discipline and
practice; and H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A (e) unquestionable moral character.
54. Nomination of mathadhipathi: (1) Subject to the provisions of •
Section 53, a mathadhipathi may nominate his successor. The fact
of such nomination shall be intimated to the Commissioner, within
ninety days of such nomination and the Commissioner may recog-
B nise such nomination. A nomination shall not be complete unless
it is recognised by the Commissioner. The conditions for recogni-
tion shall be such as may be prescribed.

(2) Where a Mathadhipathi fails to nominate his successor under r
sub-section (1) or where there is no mathadhipathi, the Commis-
c sioner or any officer authorised by him shall after due publication
convene a meeting with the Mathadhipathis of other maths of the
same sampradayam and the disciples of the math recognise the
person nominated in such meeting as a mathadhipathi subject to
the provisions of this Act. The procedure for convening the meet-

-
D ing and method of publication shall be such may be prescribed.
r
55. Power of Commissioner to frame schemes : (1) Where the
Commissioner either suo motu or upon a report submitted by the
Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner having juris-
diction has reason to believe that the affairs of the math and its
E properties are being mismanaged, funds dre being misap-
propriated, or that there is gross neglect of duty on the part of the
mathadhipathi he may after making such enquiry as may be
prescribed order to frame a scheme of administration, of a math
and the specific endowment.
F
(2) A scheme of administration framed under sub-section (1) may
contain provision for -

(a) appointing or directing the appointment of an Executive Of-
ficer.
G
(b) constituting a committee consisting of not more than five
persons for the purpose of assisting in the whole or any part of
the administration of all the endowments of such math or of
specific endowment;

H Provided that the members of such Committee shall be chosen
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU v. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY,J.] 947

from among such person having interest in such math or endow- A
ment;

(c) determining the powers and duties of such committee; and

(d) any other relevant matter incidental to the framing of such
scheme. B

(3) Until a scheme is framed under sub-section (1) the Commis-
sioner may appoint a fit person to manage the properties of math
and its endowment.

( 4) The Commissioner, after consulting the mathadhipathi and C
other persons having interest, and after making such enquiry as
may be prescribed may by order modify or cancel the scheme
settled under sub-section '(1).

(5) Every order passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (1)
and sub-section (4) shall be published in the manner prescribed. D
(6) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner passed
either under sub-section (1) or under sub- section ( 4), may, within
sixty days from the date of publication of the order, prefer an
appeal to the Court." E
The rival contentions give rise to the question: whether any of the
provisions of Sections 50 to 55 in Chapter V of the Act is ultra vires Article
25 or 26 of the Constitution? Chapter V of the Act deals with maths and
specific endowments attached thereto. Section 47 defines "mathadhipathi"
to mean any person whether known as Mahan! or by any other name in F
whom "the administration and management of a math or specific endow-
ment attached to a math are vested." In the concept of mathadhipathi, both
the elements of power to hold property and duty to properly maintain it
are blended and neither can be detached from the other. The Mahant,
therefore, as the spiritual head of the math is entrusted with the administra- G
tion and management of the math or the specific endowment. The personal
or beneficial interest of the Mahant in the endowment attached to the math
is manifested in his power of administration and disposal of the property.
His right to administer and manage the property endowed to the math and
other rights of similar character are vested in the office of the Mahant and,
therefore, they are legal rights attached to the management and the ad- H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A ministration of the p~operty endowed to the math. He holds the office by
custom and usage of the institution. He acts for the benefit of the institution
of which he is the head. The Mahant as an ascetic holds the property and,
therefore, it is not heritable like ordinary devolution of the property since
he has completely severed all his ·mundane connections with his natural ··
family; cut off from the mundane affairs and is ordained to impart religious
B education to his disciples and teaching of the religious scriptures etc. to
the followers of the religion or the sect. Therefore, the ordinary rules of
succession to Mahantship do not apply.
r
Article 25, as its language amplifies assures to every person subject
C to public order, health and morality, freedom not only to entertain his
religious beliefs, as may be approved of by his judgment and conscience,
but also to exhibit his belief in such outwardly act as he thinks proper and
to propagate or disseminate his ideas for the edification of others. Mahan!
as head of the spiritual fraternity and by virtue of his office has to perform
D the duties of a religious teacher. The deep layers of religion used in Article
25 and 26 and its manifest efficacy in social well-being and integration in y-

the onward march of civilisation from tribal society to modern life would
appropriately be dealt with in the connected cases relating to Archakas.
Suffice it to state that it is the duty of Mahan! to practise and propagate
the religious tenets of which he is an adherent and if any provision of law
E prevents him from propagating his doctrine that would certainly affect the
religious freedom guaranteed under Article 25. Math or a specific endow-
ment per se cannot practise or propagate religion. It can be done only by
individual persons. Whether those persons propagate their personal views 1

or the tenets for which the institution was started, is immaterial for the
F purposes of Article 25. Only propagation of beliefs is protected, it does not
matter whether the propagation takes place in a temple or any other
meeting.

Chapter V does not per se attempt to regulate the propagation c:
preaching of the tenets by Mahan! or of the math or religious beliefs to
G which the math is founded or it seeks to propagate. The definition of the
mathadhipathi for the purpose of the Act is expressly confined only in
relation to the administration and management of a math or specific
endowment attached to the math and vested in him as mathadhipathi.
Mahan! is not a mere manager or custodian of the property. In his office
H as spiritual head, he was power to dispose of certain properties only for
\
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY. J.] 949

the benefit of the institution, incur expenditure for the math, to carry on A
religious worship for the disciples and to maintain himself consistent with
his office. Though he has undoubted power to apply the funds of the
institution, it would always be subject to certain obligations and duties
equally governed by customs and usage of the institution. By operation of
Section 48, Sections 18 to 22, 25 and 28 in Chapter III of the Act shall not
B
apply to the maths or specific endowment attached thereto. Though Sec-
tion 2 (29) defines 'trustees' to include mathadhipathi, in the light of
Section 47, by juridical metamorphosis, Mahan! is a trustee of the math in
relation to the management of the property of the math or the specific
endowment attached to the math. He has to discharge the duties of a
trustee and is answerable as such. The definition of "trustee" was used to c
reiterate the position he holds in general Jaw of trust in relation to maths
and in law he is enjoined to hold it as trustee. However, the word 'trustee'
does not include his right as a spiritual head of the math or to be hereditary
trustee. The definition of "hereditary trustee" under Section 2(16) which
was abolished under the Act, therefore, does not apply nor does it include D
a Mahant who is spiritual head nominated by his predecessor mathad-
hipathi or regulated under the Act for the reasons stated by Shri Rao to
which we agree as it is axiomatic that office of mathadhipathi is not
hereditary or devolved by succession. In most case it is regulated by
nomination by his predecessor under the Act; and in the absence of
nomination, by consultation with Mahan! of similar maths. E

As seen, Mahant being an ascetic sanyasi, he renounces mundane
affairs and totally cuts off his ties with his natural family. In H.H. Sud-
hu11dra 1hi1tha Swamiar v. Commissioner for Hindu Religious & Charitable
E11dowmellts, Mysore, [1963] Supp. 2 SCR 302, this Court had held at page F
312 that "generally a mathadhipathi is a sanyasin who has renounced the
worldly affairs and severed his ties with his family" Therefore, the question
of hereditary succession to the office of mathadhipathi does not arise. He
is, therefore, neither hereditary trustee nor a trustee in the sense envisaged
under Sections 2(29) and 2(16) of the Act respectively. But in juxtaposition, G
his position as mathadhipathi is of a trustee of the property of the math or
specific endowment attached to it of which he is the head and holds the
property as head of the institution as a trustee with beneficial enjoyment
over the math properties for the propagation of the religious tenets and
the philosophy applicable to the math or specific endowment and Hindu
Dharma. In Kakinada Annadana Samajan Etc. v. Commissioner of Hindu H
}

950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 1 S.C.R.

A Religious & Chaiitable Endowmellt, Hyderabad & Ors., (1977] 2 SCR 878 at
886, this Court had held that mathadhipathi is entitled to maintain all the
properties of the math or the special endowment and allowed power to
manage or administer the properties endowed to the math or specific
endowment. Since Chapter V specifically deals with maths and Mahants,
the general provisions in Chapter III relate to the administration and
B management of Hindu charitable and religious institutions and endow-
ments to the extent of inconsistency stand excluded by Section 48 from
their operation to maths and specific endowments attached to it. Section
49 relates to fixation of the dittam known as scale of expenditure with which
we are not concerned in this case.
c
Section 53 deals with filling up of permanent vacancies in the office
of mathadhipathi. It is necessary to emphasise that mathadhipathi as
spiritual head of the math, while imparting religious education, blends his
personal beneficial interest in the properties of the math. The eligibility of
D succession as mathadhipathi by nomination and his qualification for
eligibility are distinct from his power of management of the properties and y-

of due administration of the math. The scope of interference with nomina-
tion as Mahan! or his qualifications is delicate but bears paramount impor-
tance. Everyone interested in the math, predecessor mathadhipathi or
disciples would be keenly and genuinely interested in due managem_ent and
E administration of math and its properties and specific endowments. The
Commissioner, when called to deal with recognition or nomination, should
keep these facts in forefront.

Sub-section (1) of Section 53 deals with that question. Where a
F permanent vacancy occurs in the office of· Mathadhipathi by reason of
death or resignation or on account of his removal from office under Section
51 or otherwise, the person next entitled to succeed to the office of Mahan!,
according to the rules of succession laid down by the founder or where no
such rule is laid down, according to the usage or custom as exists or
according to the law of succession for the time being in force, shall, with
G the permission of the Commissioner, succeed to the office of mathad-
hipathi. Sub-section (2) prescribes basic qualifications thus :.

"53(2) A person for succession to the office of the mathadhipathi
under sub-section (1) shall possess the following qualifications,
H namely:
\

LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU v. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 951

(a) basic knowledge of the Hindu religion and philosophy; A

(b) knowledge of the relevant scriptures and sampradaya to which
the math belongs;

(c) capacity to impart the knowledge and preach the tenets of the
·math to the disciples; B

(d) religious temperament with implicit faith in discipline and
+ practice; and

(e) unquestionable moral character."
c
The regulation under sub-section (1) of Section 53, viz., permission
of the Commissioner for the succession to the office of the mathadhipathi,
is only to ensure that a person who possesses the qualifications prescribed
in sub-section (2) and the nominee does not suffer from any of the
-'f disqualifications mentioned in Section 51(1) and such person alone would D
succeed to the office. Sri Parasaran is right in his emphasis that a disciple
would learn from childhood religious education under the guidance of the
spiritual head or any other suitable guide. The broad guidelines in Section
53(2) are illustrative as bridges to make a more mature sanyasi with
profound knowledge in religion. In this perspective, it is pertinent to quote E
sub-section (1) of Section 51 which reads thus :

"51. Removal of Mathadhipathi - (1) The Commissioner may suo
motu or on an application of two or more person having interest
initiate proceedings for removing a mathadhipathi or a trustee of
a specific endowment attached to a math, if he - F

(a) is of unsound mind;

(b) is suffering from any physical or mental defect or infirmity
which renders him unfit to be a mathadhipathi or such trustee; G

(c) has ceased to profess the Hindu religion or the tenets of the
math;

(d) has been sentenced for any offence involving moral turpitude,
such sentence not having been reversed; H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A (e) is guilty of breach of trust, or is appropriation in respect of any
of the properties of the math;

(f) commits persistent and wilful default in the exercise of his
powers or performance of his functions under the Act;

8 (g) violates any of the restrictions imposed or practices enjoined
by the custom, usage or the tenets of the math, in relation to his
personal conduct, such as celibacy, renunciation and the like;

(h) leads an immoral life; or
c (i) fails or ignores to implement the principle set out in clause (17)
of Section 2. 11

The Commissioner is empowered to remove a Mathadhipathi either
on an application of two or more persons having interest in the proper
D management or administration of the math or suo n1otzt. It is, to reiterate,
that by the exemplary conduct, character, piety, erudition and dedication,
the spiritual head inspires faith in the people and as its part properly
manages the math and efficiently administers the properties of the math
or specific endowment attached to the math. Mathadhipathi of Sri
E Raghavendra Swamy math inspires reverence and exacts respect. The
problem of removal arises when the Mahant by his conduct and act, falls
astrcy from the path of piety and indulges in acts uncalled for from a
sanyasi and commits misfeasance and malfeasance, defalcation, misap-
propriation, falsification of accounts etc. The Commissioner would be
entitled to initiate proceedings and remove a mathadhipathi or a trustee of
F a specific endowment on his satisfying any one or all the conditions
enumerated on clauses (d) to (i) or on incurring disqualifications
enumerated in clauses (a) to (c). He is liable to action under Section 51
(1).

In Digyadarsan Rajendra Ramdassji Vwu v. State of Andhra Pradesh
G & Anr., [1970] 1 SCR 103, the appellant mathadhipathi of Sri Swami
Hathiramji Math, Tirupathi-Thirumala, was suspended from his office
pending enquiry under Section 46(2) of the predecessor Act 17 of 1966.
He challenged the constitutionality of Sections 46 and 47 as violative of
Articles 14, 25(1),26(b) and (d) of the Constitution. After considering the
H vires of those provisions, this Court had held that while the Mahan! was
\

LAKSHAMANAYATENDRULUv. STATE[K.RAMASWAMY,J.] 953

entitled to enjoy larger powers for the benefit of the institution of which A
he is the head, he is under an obligation to maintain the dignity of his office
and to incur expenditure for the math. The Mahant cannot incur expendi-
ture for personal luxury or objects incongruous with his position as a
Mahan!. The validity of Section 46, therefore, was upheld. If a Mahant if
of unsound mind or suffers from any physical or mental defect or infirmity B
or has ceased to profess Hindu religion or the tenets of the math or if his
case falls within any of clauses (d) to (h) of Section 46(1), his removal
r would be in the interest of the general public. A mathadhipathi cannot
+ possibly perform his duties either as a spiritual or a temporal head nor can
he properly administer or manage the trust if he falls within the categories
mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) or has been guilty of breach of trust or C
wilful default etc. or leads an immoral life [vide.clauses (e) to (h) of Section
46(1)]. The validity of Section 46(1), therefore, was upheld. The same are
the provisions in Section 51(1) and, therefore, their validity is no longer res
integra.
D
The suspension of a mathadhipathi, during inquiry, is a necessary and
reasonable part of the procedure which has been prescribed by Section 46
of predecessor Act of 1966. If he is ailowed to function during the penden-
cy of an inquiry the entire purpose of the enquiry must be defeated. The
mathadhipathi may, during enquiry, do away with most of the evidence or
tamper with the books of accounts or otherwise commit acts of misap- E
propriation and defalcation in respect of the properties of the math. It is
essential, therefore, in these circumstances, to make a provision for
suspending him till the enquiry concludes and an order is made either
exonerating or directing his removal. The action under Sections 46 and 47
does not infringe Article 25(1) or 26(b) or (d). F

By operation of sub-section (2) of Section 53, the qualifications for
a mahant are prescribed. If a Mahant has already been removed, if self-
same person is nominated as a mathadhipathi under Section 51(2), it would
be obvious that the Commissioner cannot recognise such a nomination and
grant permission to him as mathadhipathi, He would be entitled to call G
nomination afresh. Obviously, recognition of the Commissioner required
under sub-section (1) of Section 53 only regulates in that behalf, and not
when he is in duly nominated as per the qualifications prescribed in
sub-section (2) of Section 53. The provisions, therefore, are intended to
avoid needless protracted litigation over succession adversely affecting due H
)

954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A administration and inaintenance of the math, to safeguard the interest of
the math and due fulfilment of the objects for which the math or specific
endowment is created or established. ·

The Commissioner who is the head of the Endowment Department
is a high ranking officer with wide administrative experience and is ex-
B pected to act fairly and reasonably to effectuate the purpose of Chapter V.
It can be accepted that such a high ranking officer would call to his aid
necessary and incidental or ancillary powers only to give effect to the
purpose of the Act. He would act reasonably, objectively and fairly. If he
betrays the faith and acts arbitrarily, the individual act is amenable to
C correction in an appropriate proceedings. So, he is not expected to act
arbitrarily or at his whim either to accord or refuse permission to the
nominated mathadhipathi. If he commits any excess or acts unreasonably,
the individual act is liable to be questioned and dealt with appropriately
according to _law. But for that ground Section 53 cannot be declared ultra
D vires.

Sub-section (2) of Section 51 provides procedure for removal of the
mathadhipathi for one or the other grounds enumerated in sub-section (1)
of Section 51. The Commissioner shall frame a charge on the proposed
grounds enumerated in sub-section (1) and have it served on the Mahan!.
E He should give an opportunity to the erring incumbent of meeting such
charge. Opportunity to adduce evidence in proof of the charge or in
rebuttal thereof, if che Mahant requests, should be given. After considering
and testing the evidence adduced and other material before him, he should
arrive at his decision and record reasons in support thereof and record
F finding on each charge whether the charge is proved or disproved. The
Commissioner, may by order, exonerate the mathadhipathi or a trustee or
may remove him from office. In the case of a math headed by a mathad-
hipathi whose annual income exceeds Rs. 1 lakh, the order by removal of
mathadhipathi of trustee shall not take effect unless it is confirmed by the
Government. The operation of sub-section (3) is only transitory, viz.,
G pending enquiry and passing of the final order under sub-section (2), the
Commissioner is entitled to temporarily suspend the mathadhipathi or the -r---·
trustee, as the case may be.

Validity of similar provision in Section 46 of predecessor Act of 1966
H has already been upheld by this Court in Digyadarshan Rajendra
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU v. STATE [K RAMASWAMY, J.] 955

Ramdassiji's case. Under sub-section ( 4) an aggrieved mathadhipathi/trus- A
tee has been given right of challenging the order of removal by instituting
a suit in the court defined in Section 2(8) within 90 days from the date of
the receipt of the order, with a further right of appeal to the High Court,
under sub-section (5), within 90 days from the date of the decree or order
of the Court. It would thus be clear that complete procedure and
B
machinery has been provided to the charged Mahant/trustee to disprove
the charge and in case of removal from office, he has right of instituting
suit and preferring appeal to High Court to have it corrected and legality
of the order of removal, tested with adequate procedural safeguards.
Section 51 thus provides a complete machinery for removal of an erring
Mahant adjudging him to be not a fit person to remain mathadhipathi. The c
validity of the grounds for removal have already been upheld in Ramdassji's
case.

Section 52 operates for filling up of temporary vacancies in the office
of mathadhipathi. Sub-section (1) thereof enumerates the circumstances in D
which the office of mathadhipathi 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 has no guardian fit and willing to act as guardian
or where the mathadhipathi is under suspension under sub-section (3) of
Section 51. On the existence of any of the three grounds, the Commis-
sioner shall, if he is satisfied, after making enquiry in this behalf, that E
arrangement for administration of the math or 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 mathadhipathi ceases or other mathadhipathi succeeds to the office, as
the case may be. The satisfaction reached by the Commission would be on F
consideration of the material and other relevant attending circumstances.
Sub-section (2) enjoins that the Commissioner, in making interim arrange-
ment 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 G
any of the disciples of the math for management of the math as temporary
mathadhipathi until the disability of the mathadhipathi ceases or another
mathadhipathi duly succeeds to the office, as the case may be. In the case
of filling up of the vacancies when the mathadhipathi nominated is a minor,
sub-section (3) makes available the remedy under the provisions of Andhra H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 ap-
plicable to the place where the math is situated, for appointment of a fit
person as guardian to the ward/minor sanyasi mathadhipathi to administer
the math and the properties attached to the math or specific endowment
B
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.
c
Section 54 deals with nomination of the mathadhipathi. Shri
Parasaran, learned senior counsel while addressing his arguments which
need no repetition, raised a very strong objection and fervently, repeatedly,
forcibly and persuasively argued that the secular authority should not be
D permitted to interpose in the nomination of Mahant by act of acceptance
of the nominated mathadhipathi on diverse grounds mentioned herein-
before. Having given our due careful and very anxious consideration lo his
arguments and equality palatable contentions of Shri P.P. Rao, we find that
role of the Commissioner in that behalf is minimal. It is seen that by
operation of sub-section (1) with a non obstante clause, viz., "subject to
E provisions of Section 53", the basic qualifications required for a person to
be nominated as Mathadhipathi are enumerated in sub-section (2) of
Section 53. The approach to this problem, which has to be kept in view by
the Commissioner, has already been stated and bears no repetition. The
Mahant may himself nominate his successor. In other. words, the predeces-
F sor Mahant should keep the prohibited grounds enumerated in sub-section
(l) of Section 51 and qu~lifications mentioned in Section 53 (2) before he
nominates the successor. He is the best person to adjudge among his
disciples or any other persons, the most fitting person eminently suited to
succeed him. He would be actuated solely with religious fervour and
G capacity of his successor lo properly and efficiently manage the trust, to
elongate the object and purpose of the math according to the established
traditions, usage, customs and Sarnpardayams. He is enjoined, after due
deliberation, to decide his successor and to intimate such nomination to
the Commissioner within 90 days. The Commissioner is further required to
recognise such nomination: Nomination ipsofacto cannot be recognised by
H the Commissioner.
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY, J.) 957

In T71e Commissione1; Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri A
Laksl1mindra 171irtha Swamiaar of S1i Slti1Ur Math, [1954} SCR 1005 which
is locus classic, this Court had held that "(h)aving regard to the fact that
the mathadhipathi occupies the position of a trustee with regard to the
math, which is a public institution, some amount of control or supervision
over the <lue administration of the endowments and the appropriation of B
their funds is certainly necessary in the interest of the public and we do
not think that the provision of this section by itself offends any fundamental
right of the Mahant. We do not agree with the High Court that the result
of this provision would be to reduce the Mahant to the position of a
servant. No doubt the Commissioner in invested with powers to pass
orders, but orders can be passed only for the purpose specified in the C
section and not for interference with the rights of the Mahant as are
sanctioned by usage or for lowering his position as the spiritual head of the
institution. The saving provision contained in Section 91 of the Act makes
the position quite clear. An apprehension that the powers conferred by this
section may be abused in individual case does not make the provisions itself D
bad or invalid in law". The ratio with equiforce is applicable to the context
in which we are called upon to test validity of the provision.

In this behalf, the Commissioner is guided by Pandit Rules under
which the duly competent person assists him in convening the meeting of
Mahants having similar Samparadaya for nomination of a mathadhipathi. E
He is required to recognise the nomination of Mahant. We find that the
suitable procedure has been made in G.O. M.S. No. 218 Revenue date
March 17, 1988 known as Administration of Math Rules, 1987 (for short,
"Math Rules"). Proviso to clause· (v) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 and proviso
to clause (v) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 by way of amendment have been
F
placed before us with an affidavit of Shri N. Narasimha Rao, Additional
Commissioner, Endowment Department who was duly authorised to swear
the affidavit in that behalf.

The above provisos intend to operate thus :
G
Proviso under clause (v) of sub Rule (1) of Rule 3:

Provided that the Commissioner shall consult and obtain the
opinion of eminent persons in the field of reli&rion and philosophy
and Sainpradaya to which the math belongs to satisfy himself that
the nomin~e possesses the prescribed qualification." H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 1 S.C.R.

A Proviso under clause (v) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 :

"Provided that it shall not be competent to the Commissioner to
refuse recognition of the nomination or permission to succeed
without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Mathadhipathi
and the nominee or the successor as the case may be."
B
It would thus be seen that the Commissioner shall consult and obtain
the opinion of eminent persons in the field of religion, philosophy and
Sampradaya to which the math belongs to satisfy himself that the nominee
possessed the prescribed qualifications under sub-section (2) of Section 53
C and is not disqualified under Section 51(2) and would take decision before
granting recognition. In case he would choose to refuse recognition to the
nomination, the Commissioner should given an opportunity of being heard
to the Mahant and the nominee giving the grounds on which he proposes
to refuse recognition and consider the same. It would be obvious that he
D should record reasons for refusal. In other words, what is required is that
the Commissioner should test the nomination but not interpose with the
nomination, nor interdict a duly qualified person as mathadhipathi. The
role of the Commissioner in that behalf, therefore, is only in the nature of
an intervener in the nomination duly testing whether the nominated person
is a fit person to hold the office of Mahant and to manage and administer
E the math according to the tenets. Sampardayams, usage, customs and
philosophy of the math and the properties attached to it.

The power of the Commissioner to frame a scheme under Section 55
of the Act is not absolute but is conditioned upon reasonable belief on the
F basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant
Commissioner having jurisdiction over the math or suo motu; but in later
event he should have material on record for entertaining a reasonable
belief that the affairs of the math and its properties are being mismanaged
or that funds are misappropriated or that the mathadhipathi grossly
neglected in performing his duties. Prior enquiry in that behalf is duly made
G in accordance with the Rules prescribed thereunder. The enquiry would
include an opportunity to the mathadhipathi to satisfy the Commissioner

-
that the report or the material, the foundation for the formation of adverse
opinion against the Mahant, is not well founded or does not exist. After
holding such an enquiry and recording the finding in that behalf as is
H implied in sub-section (1), the Commissioner is required to frame a scheme
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY,J.j 959

to administer and manage the properties attached to the match or specific A
endowment. In the scheme so framed, he is required (a) to appoint an
executive officer for day to day administration of the properties; and (b)
to constitute a committee consisting of not more than five persons for the
purpose of assisting him in the administration of the math as a whole or
any part of the administration of all the endowments of such math or
B
specific endowments. Under the proviso to sub-section (2) (b) "the mem-
bers of such committee so chosen shall be among the persons ha\~ng
.., interest in such math or endowment". In other words, the members of the
..,... committee will be persons who are genuinely interested in the proper
management of the math, management of the properties and useful utilisa-
tion of the funds for the purpose for which the math or specific endowment c
is created. The paramount consideration is only proper management of the
math and utilisation of the funds for the purpose of the math as per its
customs, usage, Sampardayams and philosophy and not the self-benefit of
person intervening in the management of the math.
D
-.,,, It would appear that the executive officer appointed should be in
charge of day to day management of the math or the specific endowment
attached to the math and the committee constituted would be of super-
visory mechanism as over all in-charge of the math. Until the scheme is so
framed, by operation of sub-section (3), the Commissioner 'may appoint a
fil person to manage the properties of the math and its endowments. After E
consulting the mathadhipathi and other per.sons having interest and after
making such enquiry in the prescribed manner, by operation of sub- section
.... ... (4), the Commissioner may, by order, modify or cancel the scheme framed
under sub-section (1) . Every order made either under sub-section (1) or
sub-section ( 4) shall be published in the prescribed manner. Any person
F
aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner passed under sub-section (1)
or (4), may, within 60 days from the date of publication of the order, prefer
an appeal to the court. The order of the court by implication would be
final.

It is true that it is the civil court, under Section 92 of the Civil G
Procedure Code, which frames the scheme . . Instead, the legislature has
-~
entrusted that power to the Commissioner. The legislature in its wisdom
felt it expedient to invest the said power with necessary limitations in the
...
Commissioner with a right of appeal to an established court defined in
Section 2 (8) of the Act. This Court in catena of cases had upheld the H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1996] 1 S.C.R.

A schemes framed by the civil court. The change in the Act is only subscitu-
tiOn of the Commissioner to the Court, subject to the limitations prescribed
before and after making the scheme. Thus a scheme framed by the Com-
missioner is subject to right of appeal to the established court which would
duly take care and correct any misapplication or non-application of the
B settled rules or principles in framing the scheme and could remedy it is an
appeal. The duration of this scheme thus fram~d may also be specified
either in the original scheme or one upheld with modification, if any, in
appeal. ·

The object of Section 55 appears to be to remedy mismanagement
C of the math or misutilisation of the funds of the math or neglect in its
management. The scheme envisages modification or its cancellation there-
of, which would indicate that the scheme is of a temporary nature and
duration till the evil, which was recorded by the Commissioner after due
enquiry, is remedied or fit person is nominated as mathadhipathi and is
D recognised by the Commissioner. The scheme is required to be cancelled
as soon as the nominated mathadhipathi assumes office and starts ad-
ministering the math and manages the properties belonging to, endowed
or attached to the math or specific endowment.

The next question is : whether Section 50 of the Act interferes with
E religion and, therefore, violative of Articles 25 and 26 of th ~ Constitution?It
is seen that the right to administer the math according to the tenets,
philosophy, customs, usages and Sampardaya would include right to
manage the properties and utilisation of the funds thereof for their due
fulfilment. Section 50 divides Padakanukas into two parts, i.e., gifts per-
F sonal to Mahant and to the math as such but given to him as being spiritual
head. ·sub-section (1) provides that the mathadhipathi shall maintain
regular accounts of receipts of Padakanukas, viz., gifts offered as personal
to the Mahant or other personal gifts of properties made to him as head
of the math. In other words, he is required to account for the receipts of
G personal gifts. As head.of the math he is entitled to utilise the funds at his
discretion for any purposes connected with the objects of the math and
propagation of Hindu dharma. The latter part indicates that after he
renders accounts of their receipt, he is free to utilise and spend the gifts
so received by him for any legitimate purpose which is connected with the
objects of the math and for propagation of Hindu dharma. Since the latter
H part is integratedly connected with his status as Mahant, it does not
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULUv. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY,J.] 961

interpose or control his power to exercise his discretion. The obligation A
y fastened on him is -only to maintain regular account of receipts of personal
gifts or other personal gifts of properties made personally to him as head
of the math. As rightly conceded by Shri Parasaran, any such Pa<lakanukas
or other personal gifts which remain undisposed of <luring the life of the
mathadhipathi shall devolve on the math as its properties by operation of" B
sub~ section (2) since the mathadhipathi is an ascetic, a sanyasi and it will
devolve only on the head of the math as math property. The explanation
makes the meaning more clear and unambiguous. Any gift of property or
of money made to mathadhipathi shall, unless it is specified by the donor
as Padakanukas or personal gift, be presumed to be gift intended for the
benefit of the math. C
In H.H. Sundundra 1hirth Swamiar case (supra) relied on by Shri
Parasaran, Section 55 of Madras Act pre-amendment and post-amend-
ment, was considered. It was held at page 315 thus :

-1 "....... We deem it necessary also to state that having regard to the D
large powers which the Mahant has over the application of the
funds not only for the maintenance of the dignity of his office and' .
expenses for the. maintenance of the math but also for such pur-
poses religious or charitable as are not inconsistent with the usage
and custom of the endowment, application of the funds for per- E
sonal enjoyment or luxury by the Mathadhipathi or for purposes
wholly unconnected with the institution, would alone be covered
by the second part of s.52(1)(!). In our view the provision which
authorises the institution of a suit for removal of a Mahan! where
he is found to have wasted the funds or properties of the institution
or has applied such funds or properties for purposes wholly un- F
connected with the institution does not amount to an unreasonable
restriction upon the fundamental right of the Mahan! in the
property under his management. 11

After noticing the amendment and its effect on the decision in Shirur G
Math case (supra), in H.H. Sudhundra Ihi1tha Swamiar case (supra) this
Court held thus :

- "By express enactrr.ont the expression 'pathakanikas' for the pur-
pose of s.55 as amended, means gifts of property made to a Mahant
as the head of the Math. By that section, the Mahan! is required H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A to keep regular accounts of receipts of such gifts and is entitled to
spend the same in accordance with the customs and usages of the
institution, for such pathakanikas received by the Mahant are gifts
to the Mahant as the head of the Math and therefore, in truth gifts
to the Math. Obligations imposed upon the Mahant to maintain
-
regular accounts of the receipts of pathakanikas of the character
B
defined in s.55 and to utilise the same in accordance with the
customs and usages of the institution cannot be regarded as an
unreasonable restriction upon the fundamental right of the
Mahan!. A Mahant being bound to discharge the duties of a trustee
and being answerable as such, a provision requiring him to main-
c tain accounts of such pathakanikas would conduce to the effective
exercise of the control over him and imposing an obligation to
spend the same in accordance with the customs and usages of the
institution is not inconsistent with his position as mahant even
though he has a beneficial interest therein. Section 55 as amended
will not apply to pathakanikas which are proved to be gifts personal
D
to the Mahant.

Our attention was invited by counsel for the appellants to cl.
(g) s.52(1) in which adoption of devices to convert the income of
the institution or of the funds or properties thereof into
E pathakanika is one of the grounds 00 which a suit for removal of
a Mahan! may life. But the expression 'Pathakanika' as used in s.52
(1) (g) appears to have the larger meaning in which that expression
is traditionally understood. In the context of of s.52 (1) (g),
'pathakania' would mean personal gifts to the Mahant. If the
Mahan! resorts to devices to convert the income of the institution
F
or the funds of properties thereof into personal gifts made to him
that would be improper conduct for which he would be liable to
be removed in a suit under s.52. But under s.55 the Legislature has
expressly restricted the meaning of the expression 'pathakanika' by
using the words, 'that is to say, any gift of property made to him
G as the head of the math'. We are therefore unable to hold that the
expression 'pathakanika' in s.55 means personal gifts and the
Legislature by enacting that section was attempting to re-enact s.55

H
as it originally stood in a different garb."

This Court further held that Padakanukas for the purpose of Section
-
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU v. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY.J.] 963

55, as amended, may not be gifts of property made to a M ahanl as head A
of the math. The Mahant is required to keep regular accounts of receipts
of such gifts. He is entitled to spend the same in accordance with the
customs of the institution, for such Padakanukas received by the Mahanl
are gifts to the Mahant as head of the math and, therefore, in truth, gifts
to the math. Obligations imposed upon the Mahant lo maintain regular
B
accounts of the receipt of the Padakanukas of the character defined under
Section 55 and and to utilise the same in accordance with the customs and
usages of the institution were held valid.

The Mahan! being bound to discharge the duties of a trustee and
being answerable as such, a provision requiring him to maintain accounts C
of such Padakanukas would conduce to the effective exercise of control
over him and imposing an obligation to spend the same in accordance with
the customs and usages of the institution) is not inconsistent with his
position as a Mahant, even though he has beneficial interest therein.
D
If the Mah ant resorts to devices to convert the income of the institu·
tion or of the funds or properties thereof into personal gifts made to him,
that would be improper conduct for which he would be liable to be
removed in a suit under Section 52. The legislature by enacting that section
did not attempt to re-enact Section 55 to bring the obligation of the
Mahan!, in a different garb. The same ratio applies to the present case. E

Sub-section (3) provides that in the case of gifts of properties made
to the mathadhipathi as personal gifts but gifts intended for the benefit of
the math, he is enjoined to maintain accounts of all the receipts and
disbursement of such gifts and to cause such accounts to be produced F
before the Commissioner or anyone authorised by him in that behalf
whenever so required. Right to manage and administer the math includes
right to use any gifts of money made to the math as gift intended for the
benefit of the math. In law, he is enjoined as a trustee to account for the
properties in his possession and is responsible for due management which G
is a secular act. It is seen that the report of Justice Challa Kondaiah
Commission had collected material that some Mahants had resorted to
corrupt practices by diverting the funds of the math as Padakanukas and
personal gifts and utilised the same to lead immoral or luxurious life or
siphoning the income to the members of natural family to which he
belonged or on wine and women. The legislature on consideration thereof H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A felt it expedient to remedy the evil and imposed a duty, which as trustee is
enjoined on him. Fastening an obligation on mathadhipathi to maintain
accounts of the receipts of Padakanukas as personal gifts made to the
mathadhipathi and lo see that the funds are properly utilised for the
purposes of the math in accordance with its objects and propagation of
Hindu dharma does not amount to interference with religion. Equally, in
' B respect of gifts of properties or money made to mathadhipathi as gifts
intended for the benefit of the math, he is bound under law as trustee, even
without amendment to the Act, to render accounts for the receipts and '>
disbursement and cause the actounts in that behalf produced from time to -(
•
time before the Commissioner or any authorised person in that behalf,
c whenever so required is part of administration of properties of the math.
Questions relating to administration of properties relating to math or
specific endowment are not matters of religion under Art. 26(b ). They are
secular activities though connected with religion enjoined on Mahan!.

Section 50 of the Act which is corresponding provision in the
D predecessor Act of 1966 requires the mathadhipathi to maintain accounts .,....
in the manner prescribed therein which is a secular activity on the part of
a mathadhipathi. The intervention of the legislature in that behalf is in the
interest of the math itself. He is, therefore, enjoined to maintain accounts
in the regular course of the administration and maintenance of the math.
E Operation of Section 50 is, therefore, a permissible statutory intervention
under Articles 25 (2)(a) and 26 (b) of the Constitution.

It is thus clear that none of Section 50 to 55 of the Act offends Article
25 or 26 of the Constitution. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed ' r

but, in the circumstances, without costs.
F
R.P. Petitions dismissed.