Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which discusses the rights under Article 25 and 26 of Constitution of India, 1950 
• This judgment was delivered by Justice T.L. Venkatarama Aiyyar, Justice Vivian Bose, Chief Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das, Justice Syed Jaffer Imam and Justice A.K. Sarkar.  

Facts 

• In the village of Mannampady, there is an ancient temple dedicated to Sri Venkatramana renowned for it’s sanctity. 
• The trustees of this institution are appellants before the Court. These are all members of the sect known as Gowda Saraswath Brahmins. 
• It is said that the home of this community in the past was Kashmir and that the members migrated to Mithila and Bihar and finally moved southwards and settled in a region around Goa. 
• Later on, a chieftan brought five of these families from Bhatkal, settled them at Mannampady, erected a temple for their benefit and installed their idol therein, which came to be known as Tirumalaivaru or Venkataramana, and endowed lands therefore. 
• The temple came to be managed by members of the community residing in the village. 
• A suit was filed under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) for framing a scheme for the temple. 
• The Madras Temple Entry Authorization Act (Madras V of 1947) (the Act) was passed, one of the objects was the removal of the public disability of Harijans from entering into Hindu public temples.  
• It was the contention of the plaintiffs that as the temple was a denominational one and they were entitled to protection of Article 26, Section 3 of the Act in so far as it provided for the institution being thrown open to communities other than Gowda Saraswath Brahmins was repugnant to Article 26 (b) of COI and was in consequence void. 
• Journey of the suit in Lower Courts: 
  • The subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. 
  • An appeal against this decision was preferred in the High Court of Madras. It was decided in favor of the Appellants

Issue Involved  

• Is the Sri Venkataramana Temple at Moolky, a temple as defined in s. 2 (2) of Madras Act V of 1947? 
• If it is, is it a denominational temple ? 
• If it is a denominational temple, are the plaintiffs entitled to exclude all Hindus other than Gowda Saraswath Brahmins from entering into it for worship, on the ground that it is a matter of religion within the protection of Art. 26(b) of the Constitution ? 
• If so, is s. 3 of the Act valid on the ground that it is a law protected by Art. 25 (2) (b), and that such a law prevails against the right conferred by Art. 26 (b)? 
• If Section 3 of the Act is valid, are the modifications in favour of the appellants made by the High Court legal and proper?

Observations

• With Respect to Issue (i): 
  • The Court held that the Sri Venkatramana Temple at Moolkhy is a public temple and is hence within the operation of the Act.  
• With Respect to Issue (ii): 
  • The Court held that the suit temple is a denominational one and is founded for the benefit of Gowda Saraswath Brahmins.  
• With Respect to Issue (iii): 
  • The Court held that if the rights of the appellants have to be determined solely with reference to Art. 26 (b), then s. 3. of Act, should be held to be bad as infringing it. 
• With Respect to Issue (iv): 
  • The Court held that in this case there are two provisions of equal authority and neither of them is subject to the other. 
  • 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. 
  • Thus, such an interpretation shall be accepted which gives effect to both the provisions Article 26 and Article 25 (2) (b) of COI. 
  • Accordingly, the Court held that Article 26 (b) must be read subject to Article 25 (2) (b) of COI.  
• With Respect to Issue (v): 
  • The modifications referred to here include various ceremonies relating to worship of the deity at specified times each day and on specified occasions.  
  • The Court held that it clearly appears from the record that the rights allowed by the High Court are purely denominational and that appears from the evidence on record. 
  • On the facts, therefore, it is possible to protect the rights of the appellants on those special occasions, without affecting the substance of the right declared by Art. 25( 2)(b); and, in our judgment, the decree passed by the High Court strikes a just balance between the rights of the Hindu public under Art. 25(2)(b) and those of the denomination of the appellants under Art. 26(b) and is not open to objection. 
  • Thus, the Court did not doubt the modifications of decree done by the High Court.  

Conclusion 

This judgment discusses the interplay between the important constitutional rights enunciated under Article 25 and Article 26 of the COI.