Sri Venkataramana Devaruand vs The State Of Mysore

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/11/1957

BENCH:
1. AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA
2.AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA
3.BOSE, VIVIAN
4.DAS, SUDHI RANJAN ( FORMER CJI)
5.IMAM, SYED JAFFER
6.SARKAR, A.K
FACTS: This was an appeal by the trustees of the ancient and renowned temple of
Sri Venkataramana of Moolky Petta, who were managing the temple on behalf of
the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins in accordance with a Scheme framed in a suit
under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the passing of the Madras
Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947 which had for its object the removal of the
disability of Harijans from entering into Hindu public temples, the trustees made a
representation to the Government that the temple was a private one, and,
therefore, outside the operation of the Act. But the Government did not accept
that position and held that the Act applied to the temple.
Challenging the decision of the government the appellants approached the trial
Court stating that they have administrative independence under Article 26 as they
form a separate denomination. However, the Court rejected their contention and
held that, the Act covered all temples. Later this view was affirmed by the High
Court but it also held that, the appellants has the right to exclude the general
public during certain ceremonies in which the members of the denomination
alone were entitled to participate. However, the appellants approached the SC for
complete exclusion.
Article 19 of the Constit
Protection of certain rig freedom of speech, etc.
Article 18 of the Constit
Abolition of titles.
Article 17 of the Constit
India: Abolition of Unto
Article 16 of the Constit
Equality of opportunity employment.
Article 15 of the Constit
Prohibition of discrimin religion, race, caste, sex
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Indian Constitution:
• Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III
• The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this
Part is guaranteed
• The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas The Supreme Court shall have power to
issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
• Article 26(b): Freedom to manage religious affairs Subject to public order,
morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall
have the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.
• Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
• Article 15(1): The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds
only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
• Article 25(2)(b): Providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of
Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of
Hindus.
JUDGEMENT:
The petitioners contended that, it was an age-old practice of Gowda Saraswath
Brahmins to conduct all the rituals and ceremonies in relation to the temple.
Therefore, the temple and its devotees constitute a religious denomination and
hence has independence in religious administration which confers upon them the
right to decide who can enter the temple.
Therefore the 1947 Act which takes away this right is unconstitutional to that
extent.
The respondents contended that, the right to freedom of religion under Article 25
of the Constitution confers the right on every individual to profess, practice and
propagate their religious believes. Further the right under Article 25(2)(b) which
specifies "throwing open of all Hindu religious institutions to all classes and
sections of Hindus" protects the validity of the impugned Act. The Act completely
protects the rights of every individual under Article 15 which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of caste.
Upon hearing the parties to the case the Court affirmed the view of the HC and
held that, a complete exclusion of general public will amount to violation of
Article 25 therefore the temple authorities may be permitted to exclude general
public only in those ceremonies which are integral in nature which are performed
by the members of Gowda Saraswath Brahmins alone. Further the Court applied
the principle of harmonious construction to resolve the dispute between Article
25 and 26.