Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore
Supreme Court of India, 8 November 1957, 5 judges, 1958 AIR 255; 1958 SCR 895
The right of a religious denomination under Article 26(b) is subject to a law under Article 25(2)(b) throwing open public temples, including denominational temples, to all Hindus, but the denomination may still exclude others from certain purely denominational ceremonies.
Facts
The Sri Venkataramana temple at Moolky, South Kanara, was managed by trustees from the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin community under a scheme decree of 1921. After the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947 was passed to remove the disabilities of excluded classes, the Government held in 1948 that the Act applied to the temple. The trustees sued for a declaration that it was not a temple under Section 2(2), and after the Constitution came into force contended that Section 3 was void under Article 26(b). The trial court dismissed the suit. The Madras High Court held the temple was denominational but that Article 25(2)(b) applied, while reserving to the denomination the right to exclude the public during certain ceremonies. The trustees appealed on a certificate, and the State of Mysore, as successor State, sought special leave against the reservation.
Questions before the Court
- Whether the temple is a public temple within Section 2(2) of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, and whether it is a denominational temple.
- Whether excluding persons from a temple for worship is a matter of religion protected by Article 26(b).
- Whether the right under Article 26(b) is subject to a law protected by Article 25(2)(b) throwing a temple open to all classes and sections of Hindus.
- Whether the High Court could validly reserve to the denomination the right to exclude the public from certain ceremonies.
What the Court held
- The temple is a public temple within the Act; the plea that it was private was not taken in the pleadings. It is a denominational temple founded for the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins, and free admission of other Hindus does not enlarge the original dedication.
- Matters of religion in Article 26(b) include practices regarded as part of religion; under the ceremonial law of temples, who may enter for worship, where they may stand and how worship is conducted are all matters of religion.
- Religious institutions of a public character in Article 25(2)(b) include temples founded for sections of the public, so denominational temples are covered. Applying harmonious construction, Article 26(b) must be read subject to Article 25(2)(b), and Section 3 of the Act is valid.
- The Article 25(2)(b) right is not absolute. Where denominational rights do not substantially reduce the public's right of worship, both can be given effect; the denomination's exclusive right to certain ceremonies was upheld, and the appeal and the special leave petition were dismissed.
Why it matters
The judgment resolves the conflict between Article 25(2)(b) and Article 26(b) by the rule of harmonious construction: a denomination cannot wholly exclude Hindus from a public temple, but may keep strictly denominational services to itself where what is left to the public is substantial. It applies the Shirur Mutt view that matters of religion include religious practices, and holds that temple entry and the conduct of worship under the Agamas are matters of religion.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Thus, under the ceremonial law pertaining to temples, who are entitled to enter into them for worship and where they are entitled to stand and worship and how the worship is to be conducted are all matters of religion.”
“The answer to this contention is that it is impossible to read any such limitation into the language of Art. 25 (2) (b). It applies in terms to all religious institutions of a public character without qualification or reserve. As already stated, public institutions would mean not merely temples dedicated to the public as a whole but also those founded for the benefit of sections thereof, and denominational temples would be comprised therein.”
“The result then is that there are two provisions of equal authority, neither of them being subject to the other. The question is how the apparent conflict between them is to be resolved. The rule of construction is well settled that when there are in an enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect could be given to both. This is what is known as the rule of harmonious construction.”
“We have held that the right of a denomination to wholly exclude members of the public from worshipping in the temple, though comprised in Art. 26(b), must yield to the overriding right declared by Art. 25(2)(b) in favour of the public to enter into a temple for worship.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 25(2)(b), Constitution
- Article 26(b), Constitution
- Section 3, Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947
- Section 2(2), Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947
Related judgments
- Follows Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954)“It is not in dispute that the modifications aforesaid relate, according to the view taken by this Court in The Commisssioners Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt” (page 16)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Sri Venkataramana Devaru and Others v. The State of Mysore and Others
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 403 of 1956 (with Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 327 of 1957)
- Decided
- 8 November 1957
- Bench
- S. R. Das (CJ), T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar, Vivian Bose, Syed Jaffer Imam, A. K. Sarkar
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by Venkatarama Aiyar, J.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.