SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-72
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 06,2014

SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY,Sabhayanagar Temple,T. Sivaraman Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SRIMATI RAJ LAKSHMI DASI VS. BANAMALI SEN [REFERRED TO]
MOHANLAL GOENKA VS. BENOY KISHNA MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOW MENTS MADRAS VS. LAKSHMINDRA THIRTHA SWAMIAR OF SHIRUR MUTT [REFERRED TO]
RATILAL PANACHAND GANDHI VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
BURN AND COMPANY WORKMEN OF BARN AND COMPANY VS. THEIR EMPLOYEES:BURN AND CO [REFERRED TO]
SATYADHYAN GHOSAL VS. DEORAJIN DEBI [REFERRED TO]
DARYAO HURMAT S O SATWA MAHENDRA LAL JAINI ROOP CHAND BRUHAN KUMAR SADASHIV RAMCHANDRA DALVI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL CHOPRA VS. RAI BAHADUR RAO RAJA SETH HIRALAL [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN IDEAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SOMAWANTI 0M PARKASH ATMA RAM CHODHA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
AMALGAMATED COALFIELDS LIMITED THE AMALGAMATED COALFIELDS LIMITED VS. JANAPADA SABHA CHHINDWARA:JANAPADA SABHA CHHINDWARA [REFERRED TO]
GULABCHAND CHHOTALAL PARIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
S AZEEZ BASHA MOHAMMAD YASEEN NURI ZULFIQUARULLA DR M TAJUDDIN QURASHI MOHD IDRIS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NANAK SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. BABU GOVERDHAN REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE [REFERRED TO]
BALLABHADAS MATHURDAS LAKHANI VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE MALKAPUR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB BUA DAS KAUSHAL VS. BUA DAS KAUSHAL:THE STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
KHAJAMIAN WAKF ESTATES VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN PATHAK RAM PARKASH MANCHANDA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JAGIR SINGH VS. RANBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
AMBIKA PRASAD MISHRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
K RAMANATHAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
G K DUDANI STATE OF GUJARAT VS. S D SHARMA:S D SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
PANNALAL BANSILAL PITTI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHAMANA YATENDRULU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAV VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
HOPE PLANTATIONS VS. LTD [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. RAVINDRA [REFERRED TO]
GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. LEELAMMA VALSON [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENTS A P VS. M R APPARAO [REFERRED TO]
OMBALIK DAS VS. HULISA SHAW [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDER KUMAR VS. RAMBHAI [REFERRED TO]
T M A PAI FOUNDATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
NELLOR MARTHANDAM VELLALLAR VS. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS [REFERRED TO]
BHANU KUMAR JAIN VS. ARCHANA KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD VS. BPL MOBILE CELLULAR LTD [REFERRED TO]
SANT LAL GUPTA VS. MODERN CO OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. K SHYAM SUNDER [REFERRED TO]
A P DAIRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. B NARASIMHA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMINDRA THEERTHA SWAMIAR OF SRI SHIRUR MUTT AND VS. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
SHA SHIVRAJ GOPALJI VS. EDAPPAKATH AYISSA BIAND [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.A.MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
SHEOPARSAN SINGH VS. RAMNANDAN PRASHAD NARAYAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DR. NOORJEHAN SAFIA NIAZ VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-98] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANJUMAN INTEZAMIA MASAJID VARANASI VS. SHAILENDRA KUMAR PATHAK VYAS [LAWS(ALL)-2024-2-64] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-1-142] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS VS. VIPIN KUMAR SHARMA & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-223] [REFERRED TO]
SYED MOHAMMAD SAJID NADVI VS. DARUL ULOOM TAJUL MASAJID [LAWS(MPH)-2015-5-79] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. VIGNESWARAN SETHURAMAN [LAWS(KER)-2014-10-364] [REFERRED TO]
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ORS. VS. DORA INFRASTRUCTURES & PROPERTIES (P) LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-6-24] [REFERRED TO]
C.S. BALAKRISHNAN VS. T. AMUDAN ANTONY (DECEASED) [LAWS(MAD)-2023-7-51] [REFERRED TO]
SUGIRTHAM RAJAGOPAL VS. G PALANI [LAWS(MAD)-2015-4-241] [REFERRED TO]
SMARTHA BRAHIMS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2022-6-107] [REFERRED TO]
GIAS PRAMANIK VS. HEDAYAT ULLAH [LAWS(GAU)-2015-5-141] [REFERRED TO]
TARAK GONGO AND OTHER VS. THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2018-6-136] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA MISRA VS. PREMA SINGH [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-9-98] [REFERRED TO]
MAHA THEJO MANDALA SABHA VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2018-9-330] [REFERRED TO]
ARULMIGHU BALAGURUNATHASAMY SAMETHA ANGALA PARAMESWARI AMMAN THIRUKOIL VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-110] [REFERRED TO]
D. RAJAPPA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-841] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTOSH KUMAR UPADHYAY VS. VIJAY KISHORE ANAND [LAWS(ALL)-2021-7-56] [REFERRED TO]
ALLEGOWDA AND ORS. VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-4-245] [REFERRED TO]
MISS SONALI NANDI VS. THE WEST BENGAL NURSING COUNCIL & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2017-3-134] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE RAIKWAR VS. GOPAL RAIKWAR [LAWS(MPH)-2015-7-90] [REFERRED TO]
SELF FINANCING PARA MEDICAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-7-197] [REFERRED TO]
ABIDA BEGUM VS. MD. SULAIMAN [LAWS(MEGH)-2014-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
SEKAR VS. ARTHANARI [LAWS(MAD)-2022-8-144] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR FARSHWAL VS. SHRI KISHAN LAL [LAWS(DLH)-2023-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
V.R. SUYAMPRAKASAM, HEREDITARY TRUSTEE VS. COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2016-12-158] [REFERRED TO]
R BASKARADOSS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU; DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (AR); REGISTRAR GENERAL [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-224] [REFERRED]
SHANKER LAL HARSH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. ZESTY FOODS [LAWS(DLH)-2023-7-150] [REFERRED TO]
SRI. CHANNAKESHWAVASWAMY TEMPLE VS. SRI. T.S. SHYAMANNA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA AND OTHERS VS. KOMAL KEWAT AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-70] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND SOOD VS. KANAK DEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN MARITIME UNIVERSITY VS. VISWANATHAN [LAWS(KER)-2014-10-298] [REFERRED TO]
SIRAJUL ISLAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
CHEGUDI ASHOK BABU AND ORS. VS. KARUNAKAR SUGGUNA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2019-8-95] [REFERRED TO]
K.B.SETHURAMAN VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2022-10-75] [REFERRED TO]
COGENT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD VS. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR JAGDISHRAY CHAWLA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-253] [REFERRED TO]
PARWEZ AKHTAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2024-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
N CHANDRA REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS [LAWS(KAR)-2016-6-359] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYASHREEPURA KSHEMABIVRUDHI SANGHA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2016-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2023-3-64] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
A. CHINNASAMY VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE SALEM [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-1179] [REFERRED TO]
V K PANDIAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (IN-CHARGE), DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-222] [REFERRED TO]
GANDHI KALVI NILAYAM HIGH SCHOOL VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-938] [REFERRED TO]
T.G. MOHAN DAS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-4-413] [REFERRED TO]
ADHI PENTHECOSTHE SATHIYA SABHAI VS. V.T. ALEXANDER [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-98] [REFERRED TO]
SRI JAYARAM ROADWAYS VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2017-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD VS. ZESTY FOODS [LAWS(DLH)-2023-7-92] [REFERRED TO]
L. RAMESH VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRANT SHARMA VS. ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-251] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA BRAHMAN VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
PARTHA PRATIM HAZRA & ANR VS. GITA LAW & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-12-108] [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF TRUSTEES VS. SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2017-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
SUDIPTO BANERJEE VS. RENUKA BANERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2019-9-120] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(CHH)-2017-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
SRI N. CHANDRA REDDY VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REP., BY ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2016-6-190] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VS. ARULMIGU BALAGURANTHASAMY SAMETHA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-782] [REFERRED TO]
TRILOK BOTHRA AND ORS. VS. CHANDRASHEKHAR GOVINDGIR GIRI AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-4-392] [REFERRED TO]
ELITA PROMENADE APARTMENT OWNERS, KOTHANU VILLAGE, PUTTENAHALLI, BANGALORE VS. KEPPEL PURVANKARA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITEE ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER [LAWS(KAR)-2016-8-225] [REFERRED TO]
MALTIBAI AND ORS VS. SHANKARRAO AND ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2015-11-125] [REFERRED]
P RAVICHANDRAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-612] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMILA DEVI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV CHOKHANI VS. GARIMA CHOKHANI [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
XL ALUGRAPHICS MUMBAI PRIVATE LIMITED VS. INTERNAL ASSETS AND RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2023-1-1871] [REFERRED TO]
G. CHANDRAMOHAN VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-129] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-5-150] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR MEHRA VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-261] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHAND JAIN AND ANOTHER VS. MADHYA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-135] [REFERRED]
A P LPG (COOKING GAS) DEALERS ASSOCIATION VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(APH)-2015-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
ARULMIGU VAITHIANATHASWAMY DEVASTHANAM VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU; COMMISSIONER, TAMILNADU HINDU RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS [LAWS(MAD)-2014-4-378] [REFERRED]
SYED GHOUSE MOHIYUDDIN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
G CHANDRAMOHAN VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-405] [REFERRED]
DEVARAJ VS. DAYARATHINI MAJOR [LAWS(KAR)-2020-3-124] [REFERRED TO]
CHANNAKESHWAVASWAMY TEMPLE VS. COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU [LAWS(KAR)-2020-5-87] [REFERRED TO]
AMINA KHATUN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2018-4-77] [REFERRED TO]
M. S. SENKATHIR PRAKASH VS. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE [LAWS(MAD)-2023-7-109] [REFERRED TO]
INFO EDGE (INDIA) LTD VS. GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2024-1-103] [REFERRED TO]
THE GARO HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL VS. MODY M. SANGMA [LAWS(MEGH)-2014-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
THE REGISTRAR VS. K.G. VISWANATHAN [LAWS(KER)-2014-10-189] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL VS. RAJENDRA [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-66] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA DEO PANDEY AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-158] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI MAHTO VS. ASHIM KR. DEY [LAWS(JHAR)-2024-2-40] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL RAGHUVANSHI VS. STATE OF M P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2019-1-139] [REFERRED TO]
KALAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS AND OTHERS VS. NAGAMMA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2017-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2024-7-91] [REFERRED TO]
P. LAKSHMANAN (DECEASED) AND OTHERS VS. KAMALASARASWATHI AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-956] [REFERRED TO]
M RAJENDRAN VS. M DAISYRANI [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-259] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU VS. SARAVANA PANDIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2017-3-112] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH VS. RAM SWARUP RAJWADE [LAWS(CHH)-2021-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. RAMESH CHANDRA SETH [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
SARJU SAW VS. CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LIMITED [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
VINIT AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR SACHIN. VS. MANOJ KUMAR SAHU [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-6-48] [REFERRED TO]
JAMIA HAMDARD (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-352] [REFERRED TO]
KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) VS. THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-110] [REFERRED TO]
VADA THIRUNAGESWARAM SENGUNTHA AND KAMAKSHI AMMAN WORSHIPPERS WELFARE SOCIETY VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2016-7-159] [REFERRED]
DILIP KUMAR DUTTA AND ANOTHER VS. SANATAN SAHA & ANOTHER [LAWS(CAL)-2017-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BINAY CHETRI [LAWS(MEGH)-2014-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
CHATHU ACHAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-6-388] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-246] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN S/O DHARAM CHAND JAIN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2018-11-136] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. MASTERS CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING & CONTRACTORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYALAKSHMI AND ORS. VS. OCHAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-293] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN GOPAL VS. MEHAR SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-7-102] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. SHIV DUTT AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-7-245] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER, CHENNAI METRO WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. V SURESH BABU [LAWS(MAD)-2015-9-546] [REFERRED]
VAYAM TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-203] [REFERRED TO]
NEETA BHARDWAJ VS. KAMLESH SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-12-103] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR BHAGAT VS. SHANTI DEBI [LAWS(CAL)-2024-2-134] [REFERRED TO]
INDIC COLLECTIVE TRUST VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2022-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
MAHANT SHRI GOPALDAS CHAILA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
SWAMI VASUDEVANAND SARASWATI DISCIPLE OF SWAMI SHANTANAND SARASWATI VS. JAGAT GURU SHANKARCHARYA, JYOTISHPEETH PEETHADESHWAR SRI SWAMI SWAROOPANAND SARASWATI [LAWS(ALL)-2017-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI VS. K.L.RATHI STEELS LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2024-5-97] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. SHRUHADUM PETROLEUM [LAWS(GJH)-2019-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. JHARKHAND ABHIYOJAN SEWA SANGH [LAWS(JHAR)-2024-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA NATH SINGH, VS. BHARAT COKING COAL [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. ABDUL QAYUM [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-12-52] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)All these appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.9.2009 passed in Writ Appeal No. 181 of 2009 by the High Court of Madras affirming the judgment and order dated 2.2.2009 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 18248 of 2006 rejecting the claim of the writ Petitioner-Podhu Dikshitars to administer the Temple.
In Civil Appeal No. 10620/2013, the Appellant has raised the issue of violation of the constitutional rights protected under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'Constitution') in relation to the claim by Podhu Dikshitars (Smarthi Brahmins) to administer the properties of the Temple in question dedicated to Lord Natraja. The same gains further importance as it also involves the genesis of such pre-existing rights even prior to the commencement of the Constitution and the extent of exercise of State control under the statutory provisions of The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1951') as well as the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1959').

Civil Appeal No. 10621/2013 is on behalf of Podhu Dikshitars claiming the same relief and Civil Appeal No. 10622.2013 has been filed by the Appellants supporting the claim of the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 10621/2013.

(2.)For convenience in addressing the parties and deciding the appeals, we have taken Civil Appeal No. 10620/2013 as the leading appeal. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the appeal are as under:
A. That Sri Sabhanayagar Temple at Chidambaram (hereinafter referred to as the 'Temple') is in existence since times immemorial and had been administered for a long time by Podhu Dikshitars (all male married members of the families of Smarthi Brahmins who claim to have been called for the establishment of the 'Temple in the name of Lord Natraja).

B. 1 he State of Madras enacted the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1927'), which was repealed by the Act 1951. A Notification No. G.O. Ms. 894 dated 28.8.1951 notifying the Temple to be subjected to the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act 1951 was issued. The said notification enabled the Government to promulgate a Scheme for the management of the Temple.

C. In pursuance to the same, the Hindu Religious Endowments Board. Madras (hereinafter called the 'Board') appointed an (Executive Officer for the management of the Temple in 1951 vide order dated 28.8.1951 etc.

D. The Dikshitars, i.e. Respondent No. 6 and/or their predecessors in interest challenged the said orders dated 28.8.1951 and 31.8.1951 by filing Writ Petition Nos. 379-380 of 1951 before the Madras High Court which were allowed vide judgment and order dated 13.12.1951 quashing the said orders, holding that the Dikshitars constituted a 'religious denomination' and their position vis- -vis the Temple was analogous to muttadhipati of a mutt; and the orders impugned therein were violative of the provisions of Article 26 of the Constitution.

E. Aggrieved, the State of Madras filed appeals before this Court, which stood dismissed vide order dated 9.2.1954 as the notification was withdrawn by the State-Respondents. After the judgment in the aforesaid ease as well as in The Commissioner. Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 AIR(SC) 282 (hereinafter referred to as 'Shirur Mutt Case'), the Act 1951 was repealed by the Act 1959. Section 45 thereof empowers the Statutory Authorities to appoint an Executive Officer to administer the religious institutions. However, certain safeguards have been provided under various provisions including Section 107 of the Act 1959.

F. On 31.7.1987, the Commissioner of religious endowment in exercise of his power under the Act 1959 appointed an Executive Officer. Consequent thereto, the Commissioner HR & CE passed an order dated 5.8.1987 defining the duties and powers of the Executive Officer, so appointed for the administration of the Temple.

G. Aggrieved, the Respondent No. 6 challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 7843 of 1987. The High Court of Madras granted stay of operation of the said order dated 5.8.1987. However, the writ petition stood dismissed vide judgment and order dated 17.2.1997.

H. Aggrieved, the Respondent No. 6 preferred Writ Appeal No. 145 of 1997 and the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 1.11,2004 disposed of the said writ appeal giving liberty to Respondent No. 6 to file a revision petition before the Government under Section 114 of the Act 1959 as the writ petition had been filed without exhausting the statutory remedies available to the said Respondent.

I. The revision petition was preferred, however, the same stood dismissed vide order dated 9.5.2006 rejecting the contention of the Respondent No. 6 that the order dated 5.8.1987 violated Respondent's fundamental rights under Article 26 of the Constitution observing that by virtue of the operation of law i.e. statutory provisions of Sections 45 and 107 of the Act 1959, such rights were not available to the Respondent No. 6, in this order, the entire history of the litigation was discussed and it was also pointed out that the Executive Officer had taken charge of the Temple on 20.3.1997 and had been looking after the management of the Temple since then. The said order also revealed that the Respondent No. 6 could not furnish proper accounts of movable and immovable properties of the Temple and recorded the following finding of fact:

The powers given to the Executive Officer, are the administration of the Temple and its properties and maintain these in a secular manner. Hence, the rights of the Petitioners are not at all affected or interfered with, in any manner whatsoever the aim and reason behind the appointment of the Executive Officer is not for removing the Petitioners who call themselves as trustees to this Temple.

J. The Respondent No. 6 preferred Writ Petition No. 18248 of 2006 for setting aside the order dated 9.5.2006 which was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 2.2.2009 observing that the judgment referred to hereinabove in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 379-380 of 1951 titled Marimuthu Dikshitar v. The State of Madras and Anr., 1952 1 MadLJ 557, wherein it was held that Dikshitars were a 'religious denomination', would not operate as res judicata.

K. Aggrieved, the Respondent No. 6 filed Writ Appeal No. 181 of 2009, the present Appellant Dr. Subramanian Swamy was allowed by the High Court to be impleaded as a party. The Writ Appeal has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.9.2009.

Hence, these appeals.

(3.)The Appellant-in-person has submitted that Article 26 of the Constitution confers certain fundamental rights upon the citizens and particularly, on a 'religious denomination' which can neither be taken away nor abridged. In the instant case, the Dikshitars had been declared by this Court, in a lis between Dikshitars and the State and the Religious Endowments Commissioner, that they were an acknowledged 'religious denomination' and in that capacity they had a right to administer the properties of the Temple. Though in view of the provisions of Section 45 read with Section 107 of the Act 1959, the State may have a power to regulate the activities of the Temple, but lacks competence to divest the Dikshitars from their right to manage and administer the Temple and its properties. It was strenuously contended that the High Court committed an error by holding that the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in Marimuthu Dikshitar would not operate as res judicata. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.