The Madras High Court recently emphasised on the need to exercise restraint when it comes to interfering in the functions of religious institutions..Pertinent observations in this regard were made by Justice V Parthiban while dismissing a plea concerning the appointment of a Pandara Sannadhi (administrative head) to the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam (religious mutt/Hindu monastery)..Notably, the High Court emphasised that its powers of judicial review do not extend to the nebulous area of religious institutional function, particularly when there is no public interest involved. As stated in the judgment,.“When the statute itself governing the Mutt and its activity does not envisage any role in the appointment, this Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot extend its jurisdiction in the nebulous area of religious institutional function..In the absence of any statue governing such point, this Court cannot extend its long arm of jurisdiction in a vacuum unless or until, there is a strong case for protecting the public policy and public interest as against the interest of the institution.”.The petitioner, styled as His Holiness Kasiviswanatha Pandara Sannidhi, had been appointed junior Pandara Sannadhi in 1997 by the Pandara Sannadhi at the time..However, the petitioner was removed from his office in 2002, after criminal proceedings were initiated against him for conspiracy and attempt to murder a junior Pandara Sannadhi..In 2004, the District Court dismissed a challenge to this removal for default. In 2012, Sri Meenakshisundara Thambiran was appointed to take the place of the erstwhile Pandara Sannadhi, following his death in 2012..By this time, the petitioner had been acquitted of his criminal charges. The petitioner, therefore, moved the Madras High Court in a bid to assail Meenakshisundara’s appointment and take his place as head of the mutt instead..At the outset, the High Court found that the petition was liable to be dismissed for not being maintainable, considering the District Court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s civil suit in 2004. The Court noted,.“[There is] no doubt in rendering a finding that the cause of action which formed the basis of the writ petition and the civil suit is one and the same and therefore, the writ petition is clearly not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner.”.However, before parting with the case, the Court also cautioned against undue judicial interference in religious functions by stretching judicial activism beyond permissible limits. As recorded in the order,.“…today, the tentacles of the judicial power, particularly under Article 226 of Constitution of India, can permeate to all levels as the Courts is confronted with new challenges by the passage of time….…Some times judicial activism becomes imperative to address extraordinary situation for serving larger public interest and to serve larger public purpose. .At the same time, the Court cannot lose its sight of the fact that it cannot travel beyond the areas of judicial management unless it is compelled for serving larger public interest.”.Rather, the Court indicated that there should be reasonable spaces for legitimate activities beyond the reach of judicial powers..“There ought to be a judicially manageable standards in order to allow reasonable space for certain legitimate activities outside the reach of the judicial power..The Courts cannot be the sole repository of all knowledge and wisdom in all matters and can substitute its views particularly in matters of religious function.”.The High Court added that Courts should adopt a balanced approach so that they only intervene when it is necessary to do so in public interest..“The Courts in such situation have to do tightrope walking without falling on either side namely unnecessary judicial activism or mute spectator to any blatant wrongdoing against the public interest. The Courts have to maintain the fine balance in order to protect its hallowed existence.”.In this case, the removal of the petitioner as a Pandara Sannadhi by the mutt head was a purely religious function. There was no statutory provision (under the Hindu Charitable and Religious Endowments Act) nor public interest which called for the High Court’s intervention..Further, Article 26 of the Constitution protected the mutt’s freedom to practice its religion as a fundamental right. In consequence, the Madras High Court opined that the issue fell outside judicial reach..For these reasons, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable and devoid of merits. .Read the order:
The Madras High Court recently emphasised on the need to exercise restraint when it comes to interfering in the functions of religious institutions..Pertinent observations in this regard were made by Justice V Parthiban while dismissing a plea concerning the appointment of a Pandara Sannadhi (administrative head) to the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam (religious mutt/Hindu monastery)..Notably, the High Court emphasised that its powers of judicial review do not extend to the nebulous area of religious institutional function, particularly when there is no public interest involved. As stated in the judgment,.“When the statute itself governing the Mutt and its activity does not envisage any role in the appointment, this Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot extend its jurisdiction in the nebulous area of religious institutional function..In the absence of any statue governing such point, this Court cannot extend its long arm of jurisdiction in a vacuum unless or until, there is a strong case for protecting the public policy and public interest as against the interest of the institution.”.The petitioner, styled as His Holiness Kasiviswanatha Pandara Sannidhi, had been appointed junior Pandara Sannadhi in 1997 by the Pandara Sannadhi at the time..However, the petitioner was removed from his office in 2002, after criminal proceedings were initiated against him for conspiracy and attempt to murder a junior Pandara Sannadhi..In 2004, the District Court dismissed a challenge to this removal for default. In 2012, Sri Meenakshisundara Thambiran was appointed to take the place of the erstwhile Pandara Sannadhi, following his death in 2012..By this time, the petitioner had been acquitted of his criminal charges. The petitioner, therefore, moved the Madras High Court in a bid to assail Meenakshisundara’s appointment and take his place as head of the mutt instead..At the outset, the High Court found that the petition was liable to be dismissed for not being maintainable, considering the District Court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s civil suit in 2004. The Court noted,.“[There is] no doubt in rendering a finding that the cause of action which formed the basis of the writ petition and the civil suit is one and the same and therefore, the writ petition is clearly not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner.”.However, before parting with the case, the Court also cautioned against undue judicial interference in religious functions by stretching judicial activism beyond permissible limits. As recorded in the order,.“…today, the tentacles of the judicial power, particularly under Article 226 of Constitution of India, can permeate to all levels as the Courts is confronted with new challenges by the passage of time….…Some times judicial activism becomes imperative to address extraordinary situation for serving larger public interest and to serve larger public purpose. .At the same time, the Court cannot lose its sight of the fact that it cannot travel beyond the areas of judicial management unless it is compelled for serving larger public interest.”.Rather, the Court indicated that there should be reasonable spaces for legitimate activities beyond the reach of judicial powers..“There ought to be a judicially manageable standards in order to allow reasonable space for certain legitimate activities outside the reach of the judicial power..The Courts cannot be the sole repository of all knowledge and wisdom in all matters and can substitute its views particularly in matters of religious function.”.The High Court added that Courts should adopt a balanced approach so that they only intervene when it is necessary to do so in public interest..“The Courts in such situation have to do tightrope walking without falling on either side namely unnecessary judicial activism or mute spectator to any blatant wrongdoing against the public interest. The Courts have to maintain the fine balance in order to protect its hallowed existence.”.In this case, the removal of the petitioner as a Pandara Sannadhi by the mutt head was a purely religious function. There was no statutory provision (under the Hindu Charitable and Religious Endowments Act) nor public interest which called for the High Court’s intervention..Further, Article 26 of the Constitution protected the mutt’s freedom to practice its religion as a fundamental right. In consequence, the Madras High Court opined that the issue fell outside judicial reach..For these reasons, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable and devoid of merits. .Read the order:
