The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowment Madras v. Shri Laxmidhar Tirtha Swamiyar of Shirur Mutt, 1954 AIR 282  

Introduction: –

The Madras Hindu Religious and charitable endowment act 1951 on the grounds that it provided for unwarranted and unnecessary state interference in religious affairs. The petitioner is the superior of Mathadipati of the Shirur math, one of the eight math located at Udupi in South Kanara district and said to have been founded with the help of Shri Madhvacharya a well-known advocate of dualism. Other than those eight, each one of these is passed over by the canvas or swami.

Fact of the case:

• The madhvacharya the much-revered saint, had established the eight math which belongs to sanyasi or a swami that leads over the shirur math.
•  The person who is an ex-officio post which belongs to all eight math to be held by Swami’s in a national manner these all Swami’s were responsible for the administration of the Shri madhuracharya made shri Krishna math.
• A large celebration called pranayam which is akin to a festival is organized to honor the election of a new president. The swami feeds all the Brahmins who attended the math to celebrate this.
•   Lakshimindar thirtha who is appointed shirur math and the respondent who belongs to swami presided over or belonged to 1946 exuberant way as the earlier in the year 1931 ceremony Through the ceremonies in 1931 and 1946, he racked up a sizable debt.
• A Madras commissioner of Hindu religious endowment was appointed under the 1952, act. He inferred the Debt problem after seeing a math error and began acting in accordance with the act consequently in accordance with the guidelines of the act of controlling the daily management of the account.
• Conflict arises between swami and the agent since the agent frequently disregards Swami’s authority. Therefore, legal action is taken in response to the interference.
•  To stop this interference a petition was filed with the Madras high court and the court was surrounded by math.
• The government filed to the supreme court after being vindicated by the order of the Madras High Court judgment.

Issue raised:

• The meaning of the term property and the scope of property is very breadth in nature.
• The Acts section 76(1) annual contribution payment is invalid?
• The distinction between tax and fee.
• Whether the government able to tamper with religious institution affairs?
• Whether swami has property rights under article 19(1) (f) of the constitution?

Related Provision

In this suit, the following provisions were mentioned:

• Clause (a), (b), (c) of Article 26, Article 19(1)(f), Article 26 of the constitution of India.
• Articles 110, and 119 of The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act.

The contention of the Petitioner:

The government maintains that where there is a threat to the public order, morality, or health of citizens the government is accountable for regulating the financial, economic, and political activities of the religion. The government also claims that every non-essential aspect of religious institutions is submissive to government control. According to the attorney’s general, there is the distinction between the term fees and taxes it is true as noted that a lot of entries in the list followed in list 1 of the seventh schedule deal with the various tax and levies but the last entry 96 refers to fees in relation to any of the topic covered by in the list.

The contention of the respondents:

According to the respondents, only the parliament has the authority to collect all the taxes but the State legislature still have the power to impose fee because the act, of 1951 was still passed by the Madras state legislature. The defendant further contended that 1951act 5% of the levy taxes taxation which was illegal because the state legislature had the inadequate constitutional authority to adopt it. It was further maintained that the rituals must only be performed in the manner defined by the sect that the sect which is considered a Hindu group believes must be performed in the specific of the year and at a specific time. The religious group should be treated as religious practices and be subject to article 26(b) definition of religion rather than the ad for-profit and secular organization.

Judgment:

• The term as used under Article 19(1) (f) of the constitution of India, should be given a broad enlarged term and give liberal meaning and also it should be expanded to include everything all the identity correctly the type of interest that shows the sign and rights of proprietary rights.
• The word term belonging is used in the piece of art. Article 19(1)(f) of the constitution of India must be given broad and liberals interpretation and expanded to all the lawful identity types of interest that bear the signs or traits of all the proprietary rights.
• Tax is the uncompensated compelled exaction of funds via the use of the official authority of public purpose that is enforced by the regulation.
• The distinction between the tax and a fee is sometimes found that the former is assessed as part of a customary burden later on payment of a special benefit or privilege.
•  In the current that even though it is a tax the imposition under section 76 (1) of the act does not fall under the second half of Article 27 of the constitution because the contribution under the section isn’t always the promotion or maintenance of the Hindu faith or any branch of it, but rather the proper Management religious trust and institutions wherever they may be found.

Conclusion:

The supreme court initially established the test for fundamental religious practices in 1954 in the case of the shiur math case decision. Seven bench judges of the supreme court held that what constitutes it is important to determine religious teaching in order to determine what is fundamental to that religion. In this case, the supreme case makes a strict that through judgment observations laid down that the state is strictly prohibited to interfere in any religious practices under article 25(2) (a) of the constitution but should enact a law or put to stop religious institution nonconformity when it particularly interferes with any kind of moral, health or public order which are monetary commercial or political of their individual even though they may be associated with religious practice.

Written By: Tannu jolly, Law college Dehradun, an intern under Legal Vidhiya