CASE - Sri Venkataramana Devaru v.

State of Mysore
CITATION – AIR 1958 SC 255
BACKGROUND :
The case centered around the Sri Krishna Temple in Udupi, Karnataka, which is a significant religious
institution for the followers of the Madhva tradition of Hinduism. The dispute arose when the State of
Mysore sought to exert control over the temple's management through the Mysore Hindu Religious
and Charitable Institutions Act, 1951.

KEY ISSUE:

The main issue at hand was whether the Mysore government's attempt to take control of the temple's
administration, including the appointment of trustees, was constitutional and valid under the Indian
Constitution.

ARGUMENTS:

The Devaru (hereditary trustees) argued that the temple had been under their management for
generations and that it was a matter of their religious rights and customs to continue this tradition
without interference from the government.

The State of Mysore contended that it was necessary to regulate the temple's administration to ensure
proper governance, prevent mismanagement, and promote the welfare of the public.

SIGNIFICANCE:

The case set an important precedent in Indian constitutional law by affirming the government's
authority to regulate and manage religious institutions when it is deemed necessary for the welfare of
the public. It underscored the principle that religious freedom, while essential, is not absolute and
must be balanced with the broader societal interests..

JUDGEMENT:

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, made the following key points:

1. Constitutional Validity: The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Mysore Hindu Religious
and Charitable Institutions Act, 1951. It affirmed that the State had the authority to regulate and take
control of religious institutions if such intervention was in the interest of public order, morality, and
social welfare.

2. Religious Freedom: While acknowledging the importance of religious freedom, the Court
emphasized that it was not an absolute right. It stated that the state could interfere with religious
matters if there were legitimate reasons, such as preventing maladministration and protecting the
rights of devotees.
3. Public Interest: The Court concluded that the Act aimed to prevent mismanagement, ensure the
proper application of temple funds for religious and charitable purposes, and protect the rights of
devotees. Therefore, it served a legitimate public interest.

4. Balance of Rights: The judgment emphasized the need to strike a balance between religious
freedom and the state's responsibility to ensure fair administration of religious institutions. It was seen
as an attempt to harmonize the competing interests of religious autonomy and public welfare.

SUBMITTED BY PARTH
GUPTA

UILS, PANJAB
UNIVERSITY

4TH YEAR