(PIL) No. 26 of 2020 Dr. Subramanian Swamy … Petitioner Versus St
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WWW.LIVELAW.IN RESERVED JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 26 of 2020 Dr. Subramanian Swamy … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents And Writ Petition (M/S) No. 700 of 2020 Sri 5 Mandir Samiti Gangotri Dham and another … Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents Dr. Subramanian Swamy, petitioner, in-person in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 26 of 2020. Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 26 of 2020. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 700 of 2020. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for the third respondent in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 700 of 2020. Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the Intervener in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 26 of 2020. Judgment Reserved : 06.07.2020 Judgment Delivered : 21.07.2020 Chronological list of cases referred : 1. AIR 1959 Ori 5 2. AIR 1964 SC 1501 3. (1996) 9 SCC 548 4. AIR 1963 SC 1638 5. (1997) 4 SCC 606 6. AIR 1955 SC 540 7. AIR 1946 PC 127 8. AIR 1965 SC 745 9. (1982) 1 SCC 271 10. AIR 1958 SC 883 11. AIR 1958 SC 538 12. (2012) 6 SCC 312 13. (1996) 3 SCR 721 14. (2014) 8 SCC 682 15. (2017) 9 SCC 1 16. (2017) 10 SCC 800 17. (1995) 5 SCC 482 2 WWW.LIVELAW.IN 18. (2008) 4 SCC 720 19. 2003 (4) PLJR 44 20. (2003) 5 SCC 239 21. AIR 1973 SC 1643 22. (2014) 5 SCC 75 23. (2018) 6 SCC 1 24. (1998) 1 SCC 226 25. 1982 (2) SCR 365 26. (1993) 4 SCC 441 27. AIR 1980 SC 2097 28. (1985) 1 SCC 523 29. (1973) 2 SCC 713 30. (2004) 10 SCC 1 31. (2008) 2 SCC 108 32. AIR 1959 SC 648 33. AIR 1955 SC 191 34. (1974) 4 SCC 3 35. (1996) 2 SCC 498 36. (1970) 1 SCC 245 37. (1984) 3 SCC 127 38. (2014) 4 SCC 583 39. AIR 1951 SC 41 40. AIR 1951 SC 318 41. AIR 1952 SC 75 42. AIR 1964 SC 1633 43. 1952 CriLJ 805 44. 1952 CriLJ 1167 45. 1953 CriLJ 911 46. 1953 CriLJ 1158 47. (1952) 1 MLJ 557 48. AIR 1954 SC 388 49. (1964) 1 SCR 561 50. (1974) 1 SCC 500 51. 1958 SCR 895 52. (1971) (DB) 84 Law Weekly 86 53. AIR 1954 SC 282 54. AIR 1959 SC 860 55. (2019) 11 SCC 1 56. (1977) 1 SCC 677 57. (2002) 8 SCC 106 58. (1972) 3 SCR 815 59. (1962) Suppl. SCR 496 (1) 60. (1954) 1 SCR 1046 61. (1962) 1 SCR 383 62. (2005) 11 SCC 45 63. (1983) 1 SCC 51 64. AIR 1968 SC 662 65. AIR 1966 SC 1119 66. (2002) 7 SCC 368 67. ILR (1971) AP 320 68. AIR 1971 SC 161 69. AIR 1949 PC 302 70. AIR 1953 SC 65 71. (1990) 1 SCC 193 72. (1990) 2 SCC 715 73. (2005) 1 SCC 444 74. AIR 1965 SC 1153 75. AIR 1971 SC 1676 3 WWW.LIVELAW.IN 76. AIR 2005 SC 2392 77. (2005) 7 SCC 190 78. (2004) 12 SCC 673 79. AIR 1962 SC 83 80. (1989) 1 SCC 101 81. AIR 1967 SC 1480 82. (1991) 4 SCC 139 83. (1996) 6 SCC 44 84. (2006) 1 SCC 275 85. (2005) 6 SCC 404 86. AIR 1968 SC 647 = (1968) 2 SCR 154 87. (1901) AC 495 88. AIR 2002 SC 3088 89. 98 (2002 ) DLT 525 90. (2003) 2 SCC 111 91. (2002) 3 SCC 496 92. AIR 1990 AP 171 93. (2004) 8 SCC 579 94. (2003) 11 SCC 584 95. (2004) 3 SCC 75 96. 2008 LAP 340 97. (2008) 16 SCC 14 98. (1951) 2 ALL ER 1 (HL) 99. (1970) 2 ALL ER 294 100. (1972) 2 WLR 537 101. (2004) 6 SCC 186 102. (2015) 9 SCC 109 103. (2006) 1 SCC 368 104. (1985) 1 SCC 260 105. (1972) AC 1027 106. (1984) 2 SCC 436 107. AIR 1965 SC 1887 108. AIR 1978 SC 548 109. (1990) IIL LJ 70 SC 110. (1891) 2 QB 665 111. AIR 1995 SC 1395 112. (2003) 1SCC 433 113. AIR 1990 All ER 780 114. AIR 1960 SC 971 115. (1968) 1 W.L.R. 1526 116. AIR 1952 SC 245 117. (1978) 2 SCC 1 118. AIR 2004 SC 361 119. (2015) 10 SCC 681 120. AIR 1989 SC 2105 121. 1964 (7) SCR 456 122. (1992) 2 SCC 36 123. (1981) 4 SCC 675 124. AIR 1974 SC 2098 125. AIR 2003 SC 355 126. AIR 2003 SC 4225 127. (1904) AC 515 128. (1881) ILR 4 Mad. 391 129. (1996) 8 SCC 705 130. AIR 1978 Ker 68 131. (1997) 2 SCC 745 132. (1997) 8 SCC 422 133. (2010) 13 SCC 336 4 WWW.LIVELAW.IN 134. (1969) 1 SCR 42 135. ILR (1988) KAR 960 136. (2008) 13 SCC 30 137. (2007) 13 SCC 673 138. (2015) 12 SCC 611 139. (1991) Supp. (1) SCC 600 140. (1999) 9 SCC 700 141. (1999) 4 SCC 458 142. (1993) 1 SCC 78 143. AIR 2003 SC 3268 144. (2004) 6 SCC 531 Coram : Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J. Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. The Uttarakhand Char Dham Devasthanam Management Act, 2019 (for short the “2019 Act”) is the latest, in a long line of enactments, made by various States all over the country, both before and after the advent of the Constitution, entrusting management of Hindu temples to a Board whose Chairman and members are, by and large, nominated by the State Government. The statement of objects and reasons for introducing the 2019 Bill records the need to make legal provisions, for temples and devasthanams located in Uttarakhand, similar to Shri Vaishno Devi Mata Temple, the Sai Baba, the Puri Jagannath and Somnath temples. 2. Shri Mata Vaishno Devi temple, in Jammu & Kashmir, is under the management and supervision of the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board constituted under the J&K Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988. Shri Jagannath Temple at Puri is under the control of a temple management committee constituted under the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955. A challenge to its constitutional validity, on the touch-stone of Article 26-(d) of the Constitution of India, was rejected by the Orissa High Court in Ram Chandra Deb v. State of Orissa[1], and the judgment of the Orissa High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa[2]. The Somnath temple is managed by the board of a religious and charitable trust registered under the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950, and the Shri Shirdi Sai Baba temple is managed by the board of the 5 WWW.LIVELAW.IN Shri Shirdi Sai Baba Sansthan Trust which is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. 3. Other than the above, the Lord Venkateshwara temple (popularly known as Tirupati Balaji temple) is also administered by a board, constituted under the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 called the TTD Board consisting of a Chairman and members who are nominated by the State Government. The constitutional validity of this Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in A.S. Narayan Deekshitulu v. State of A.P & others[3]. The renowned Ramanatha Swamy temple at Rameshwaram, and the Meenakshi Amman temple at Madurai, both in the State of Tamil Nadu, are under the management and control of a board constituted under the Tamilnadu (hitherto Madras) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Shrinathji temple at Nathdwara, Rajasthan is also under the control and management of a board constituted under the Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959, the constitutional validity of which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.[4]. 4. The Mahakaleshwar temple at Ujjain is in the control of a managing committee constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Shri Mahakaleshwar Act, 1982, and the Guruvayoor temple in Kerala is under the control of the Travancore Devaswom Board constituted under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The Kashi Vishwanath temple at Banaras is under the management of a board constituted under the U.P. Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983. The validity of the 1983 Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.[5]. Two of the Chardham temples in Uttarakhand, i.e. Shri Badrinath and Shri Kedarnath temples, were, prior to the 2019 Act coming into force, under the control and management of a managing committee constituted under the U.P. Shri Badrinath and Shri Kedarnath Temples Act, 1939 which continued to remain in force till it was repealed by the 2019 Act. 6 WWW.LIVELAW.IN 5. Dr. Subramanian Swamy seeks to draw a distinction between the Somanth, Shirdi Sai Baba and Vaishno Devi temples on the one hand, and the temples brought within the ambit of the 2019 Act on the other, contending that, while the former are individual temples, the latter covers a large number of temples.