Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by certificate from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in a writ petition filed by nine Khadims of the tomb of Khwaja Moin-ud-din Chishti of Ajmer challenging the constitutional validity of the Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955 and its specified provisions. The respondents claimed to represent the Chishti Soofies, a religious denomination, and alleged that the Act interfered with their fundamental rights to manage the affairs of the Durgah and to receive offerings. They argued that the Nazars (offerings) constituted their customary and main source of income and were their property. They contended that Sections 4 and 5, providing for a Durgah Committee composed of Hanafi Muslims, infringed rights under Article 26(b), (c) and (d); Section 2(d)(v) including certain Nazars in the Durgah Endowment violated right to property; Sections 11(f) and (h), Section 13(1) and Section 14 infringed Article 25(1) and property rights; and Section 18 violated Articles 14 and 32. The High Court substantially allowed the petition, declaring the impugned provisions ultra vires and restraining enforcement. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court and upheld the constitutional validity of the Act. The Court held that while Chishti Soofies might constitute a religious denomination, the protection under Article 26 extends only to essential and integral religious practices, and rights under Article 26(b), (c) and (d) cannot create rights that the denomination never had. Historical evidence showed that management of the Durgah had always vested in State-appointed Mutawallis, some of whom were Hindus, and pilgrims of all communities visited the shrine. Thus, the attack on Sections 4 and 5 failed. The Court construed Sections 2(d)(v) and 14 to mean that offerings earmarked generally for the Durgah belonged to the Durgah and could be received only by the Nazim or his agent; these offerings never belonged to the Khadims, and the sections did not violate Articles 19(1)(f) or (g). The powers conferred on the Committee by Sections 11(f) and (h) had to be read with Section 15, which mandated observance of Muslim Law and the tenets of the Chishti saint, and Section 16 providing for a Board of Arbitration, and thus did not violate Article 25(1). Section 13(1) was part of a larger scheme for determining succession to the office of Sajjadanashin and did not offend Article 25(1). Section 18 was confined to final orders within committee jurisdiction and did not contravene Articles 14 or 32. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and dismissed the respondents' challenge.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Religious Denomination - Essential Religious Practices - Article 26 Constitution of India - Protection under Article 26 extends only to essential and integral religious practices; rights under Article 26(b),(c),(d) cannot create rights denomination never had; management of Durgah never vested in Chishti Soofies; attack on Sections 4 and 5 fails (Paras 1-25). B) Property Law - Offerings to Religious Institution - Sections 2(d)(v) and 14 Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955 - Offerings earmarked generally for Durgah belong to Durgah and can be received only by Nazim or his agent; no violation of Article 19(1)(f) or 19(1)(g); legislative competence to regulate property of religious institutions (Paras 1-25). C) Religious Institutions - Powers of Committee - Sections 11(f), 11(h), 15, 16 Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955 - Powers conferred on Committee must be read with mandatory Section 15 requiring observance of Muslim Law and Chishti saint tenets; Section 16 Board of Arbitration unexceptionable; no violation of Article 25(1) (Paras 1-25). D) Religious Institutions - Succession to Sajjadanashin - Section 13(1) Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955 - Section 13(1) cannot be read apart from other provisions of Section 13; lays down procedure for determining succession disputes; does not offend Article 25(1) (Paras 1-25). E) Constitutional Law - Enforcement of Committee Orders - Section 18 Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955 - Section 18 confined to final orders within committee jurisdiction and passed against persons failing to comply; does not contravene Articles 14 or 32 (Paras 1-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955 and its specified provisions are constitutionally valid; whether Chishti Soofies constitute a religious denomination entitled to protection under Article 26; whether impugned provisions violate Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 25, 26, 30(1), 30(2), and 32 of the Constitution
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed appeal, set aside Rajasthan High Court judgment, held impugned provisions of Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955 constitutionally valid, and dismissed respondents' challenge. Article 26 protection extends only to essential and integral religious practices and cannot create rights never vested; Sections 4,5,2(d)(v),11(f),(h),13,14,16,18 upheld.
Law Points
- Article 26 of Constitution protects only essential and integral religious practices
- rights under Article 26(b)
- (c)
- (d) cannot create rights that denomination never had
- management of Durgah never vested in Chishti Soofies
- state regulation of Durgah endowment valid
- offerings earmarked for Durgah belong to Durgah not Khadims
- Sections 11(f)
- (h)
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 18 valid when read with Sections 15 and 16
