Supreme Court Upholds Trustees' Denominational Rights in Temple Entry Dispute While Affirming Public Right of Worship Under Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act. Section 3 of Madras Act V of 1947 Read with Article 25(2)(b) Constitution Controls Article 26(b), but Denominational Practices Regarding Who May Enter and How Worship Is Conducted Are Matters of Religion and Must Be Harmonised.

Civil suit for declaration that Sri Venkataramana temple at Moolky was not a temple as defined in Section 2(2) of Madras Act V of 1947 and was a denominational temple belonging exclusively to Gowda Saraswath Brahmins; also challenge to validity of Section 3 as repugnant to Article 26(b) of the Constitution.

Trustees sought a declaration that the temple did not fall within the definition of temple under the Act and that Section 3 of the Act was void as violating Article 26(b).

The Government of Madras passed an order on June 25, 1948, holding that the temple was open to all Hindus generally and that the Act applied; thereafter trustees filed the suit.

Trial court (Subordinate Judge, South Kanara) found against the appellants and held that matters of religion did not include rituals and ceremonies. On appeal, the Madras High Court held that the public were entitled to worship in the temple but reserved to the appellants the right to exclude the general public during certain ceremonies in which only members of the denomination could participate.

Whether the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion under Article 26(b) can be subjected to and controlled by a law protected by Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution. Whether the Sri Venkataramana temple was a temple as defined in Section 2(2) of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, including after its amendment by Madras Act XIII of 1949. Whether Section 3 of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947 was void for repugnancy to Article 26(b) of the Constitution. What constitutes 'matters of religion' under Article 26(b), particularly regarding entry into temples and conduct of worship.

Appellants contended that the temple was a private denominational temple founded exclusively for Gowda Saraswath Brahmins, that they alone had rights to worship therein, and that Section 3 of the Act was void being repugnant to Article 26(b). Appellants argued that the true intent of the Act was to remove disability of Harijans from entering temples dedicated to the Hindu public generally, and that the suit temple did not fall within that class. Respondents contended that the temple was open to all Hindus generally and therefore fell within the original definition of temple under Section 2(2). Respondents further argued that after the 1949 amendment, even if the temple was dedicated for the benefit of Gowda Saraswath Brahmins, it was a temple within the amended definition because that community was a section of the Hindu community.

Article 25(2)(b) is wider in scope and controls both Article 25(1) and Article 26(b); the expression 'religious institutions of a public character' includes denominational temples; 'matters of religion' under Article 26(b) includes practices regarding entry and worship; the public right of temple entry under Article 25(2)(b) is not absolute and must be harmonised with denominational rights unless such rights substantially nullify the public right.

The substantial question of law, which arises for decision in this appeal, is whether the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion guaranteed under Art. 26(b), is subject to, and can be controlled by, a law protected by Art. 25(2)(b), throwing open a Hindu public temple to all classes and sections of Hindus. While Art. 25(1) deals with the rights of individuals and Art. 26(b) with those of religious denominations, Art. 25(2) covers a much wider ground and controls both. Article 26(b) must, therefore, be read subject to Art. 25(2) (b) of the Constitution. The expression 'matters of religion' occurring in Art. 26(b) of the Constitution includes practices which are regarded by the community as part of its religion and under the ceremonial law pertaining to temples, who are entitled to enter into them for worship and where they are entitled to stand for worship and how the worship is to be conducted are all matters of religion.

In 1915, a suit O.S. No. 26 of 1915 was instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing a scheme for the Sri Venkataramana temple; a decree was passed on March 9, 1921, declaring the temple belonged to the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin community and vesting management in its members. The Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act was passed in 1947. On June 25, 1948, the Government of Madras passed an order holding that the temple was open to all Hindus generally and that the Act applied. The trustees filed the present suit on February 8, 1949, seeking a declaration that the temple was not a temple as defined in Section 2(2). On June 28, 1949, the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation (Amendment) Act XIII of 1949 amended the definition of temple to include any section of the Hindu community, and the State filed its written statement on July 25, 1949. After the Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950, the plaintiffs amended the plaint on February 11, 1950, to add the contention that Section 3 of the Act was void under Article 26(b). The Subordinate Judge of South Kanara decided the suit on March 31, 1951, against the appellants, holding that matters of religion did not include rituals and ceremonies. The Madras High Court in Appeal No. 145 of 1952, by judgment dated April 11, 1956, held that the public were entitled to worship in the temple but reserved to the appellants the right to exclude the general public during certain denominational ceremonies. The matter reached the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No. 403 of 1956, with a connected special leave petition No. 327 of 1957, and was decided on November 8, 1957.

• Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947: 2(2), 3, 6
• Madras Temple Entry Authorisation (Amendment) Act, 1949: 2(2)
• Constitution of India, 1950: 25(2)(b), 26(b)
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 92