9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959. 2. Whether the Nathdwara Temple is a public or private temple. 3. Whether the Act contravenes the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f), 25(1), 26(b), and 26(d) of the Constitution. 4. Validity of specific sections of the Act, including Sections 2(viii), 3, 4, 16, 21, 27, 28(2) and (3), 30(2)(a), 36, and 37. Issue-wise detailed analysis: 1. Constitutional validity of the Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959: The principal point for decision was the constitutional validity of the Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959. The Act was challenged on the grounds that it violated fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f), 25(1), 26(b), and 26(d) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act, emphasizing that it was intended to provide for the better administration and governance of the temple and its properties. The Court found that the Act did not contravene the fundamental rights of the Tilkayat or the denomination. 2. Whether the Nathdwara Temple is a public or private temple: The Court examined the historical background and the documentary evidence, including several Firmans and Sanads, and concluded that the Nathdwara Temple is a public temple. The Court relied heavily on the Firman issued by the Maharana of Udaipur in 1934, which declared that the temple was a public institution and that the Tilkayat was merely a Custodian, Manager, and Trustee of the temple property. The Court rejected the Tilkayat's claim that the temple and its properties were his private property. 3. Whether the Act contravenes the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f), 25(1), 26(b), and 26(d) of the Constitution: Article 19(1)(f): The Court held that the Tilkayat's rights as a Custodian, Manager, and Trustee did not constitute a right to property under Article 19(1)(f). Even if the Tilkayat were considered a Mahant or Shebait, his rights to manage the temple properties were subject to the strict supervision of the Darbar and did not amount to a right to property under Article 19(1)(f). Article 25(1): The Court found that the right to manage the properties of the temple was a purely secular matter and could not be regarded as a religious practice protected under Article 25(1). Article 26(b) and (d): The Court held that the administration of the temple properties was a secular matter and fell within the scope of Article 26(d), which allows for the regulation of the administration of the denomination's property by law. The Court found that the Act did not contravene the denomination's rights under Article 26(b) and (d). 4. Validity of specific sections of the Act: Section 2(viii): The Court reversed the High Court's decision and upheld the inclusion of the temples of Shri Navnitpriyaji and Shri Madan Mohanlalji within the definition of the temple under Section 2(viii), finding that the Tilkayat had transferred these idols to the principal temple. Sections 3 and 4: The Court upheld these sections, which vest the ownership of the temple and its endowments in the deity of Shri Shrinathji and entrust the administration to the Board. Section 16: The Court reversed the High Court's decision and upheld the validity of the clause "affairs of the temple," finding that it referred to the secular affairs of the temple. Section 21: The Court upheld this section, which gives the Board the power to appoint, suspend, remove, dismiss, or punish officers and servants of the temple, emphasizing that the Board must act reasonably and fairly by the Tilkayat. Section 27: The Court upheld this section, which empowers the State Government to depute any person to inspect the temple properties, finding that it did not contravene Articles 25(1) or 26(b). Section 28(2) and (3): The Court reversed the High Court's decision and upheld these subsections, which deal with the application of surplus funds, finding that they were consistent with the decision in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi. Section 30(2)(a): The Court struck down the first part of this section, which dealt with the qualifications for holding the office of the Goswami, but upheld the latter part, which dealt with the allowances payable to the Goswami. Section 36: The Court reversed the High Court's decision and upheld this section, which empowers the State Government to give directions to remove difficulties in implementing the Act. Section 37: The Court reversed the High Court's decision and upheld this section, which bars suits or proceedings against the State Government for acts done under the Act. Conclusion: The appeals preferred by the Tilkayat, the denomination, and Ghanshyamlalji were dismissed, and the writ petition filed by the Tilkayat was also dismissed. The appeals preferred by the State substantially succeeded, and the decision of the High Court striking down parts of the Act was reversed, except for the first part of Section 30(2)(a). The parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout.
|
