| Headnote |
Nathdwara Temple - Private or public temple - Tests - Validity of enactment providing for proper administration of temple - Constitutionality - Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959 (Rajasthan 13 of 1959) ss. 2 (viii) .3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 16, 21, 22, 27, 28, 30, 35, 36, 37 - Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 19 (1) (f), 25, 26, 31 (2). The history of the Nathdwara Temple in the District of Udaipur showed that Vallabha, who was the founder of the denomination known as Pushtimargiya Vaishnava Sampradaya, installed the idol of Srinathji in a temple and that later on his descendants built the Nathdwara Temple in 1761. The religious reputation of the temple grew in importance and several grants were made and thousands of devotees visiting the temple made offerings to the temple. The succession to the Gaddi of the Tilkayat received recognition from the Rulers of Mewar, but on several occasions the Rulers interfered whenever it was found that the affairs of the temple were not managed properly. In 1934 a Firman was issued by the Udaipur Darbar, by which, inter alia, it was declared that according to the law of Udaipur all the property dedicated or presented to or otherwise coming to the Deity Shrinathji was property of the shrine, that the Tilkayat Maharaj for the time being was merely a custodian, Manager and Trustee of the said property and that the Udaipur Darbar had absolute right to supervise that the property dedicated to the shrine was used for the legitimate purposes of the shrine. The management of the affairs by the appellant Tilkayat was not successful and it became necessary that a scheme should be framed for the management of the Temple. On February 6, 1959, the Governor of Rajasthan promulgated an Ordinance, which was in due course replaced by the Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959, The appellant challenged the validity of the Act on the grounds, inter alia, that the idol of Shrinathji in the Nathd-wara Temple and all the property pertaining to it were his private properties and, as such, the State Legislature was not competent to pass the. Act, that even if the Nathdwara Temple was held to be a public temple, he as Mahant or Shebait had a beneficial interest in the office of the high priest as well as the properties of the temple and that on that footing, his rights under Arts. 14, 19 (I) (f) and 31 (2} of the Constitution of India had been contravened by the Act. It was also urged that the provisions of the Act infringed the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Denomination under Arts. 55 (I) and 26 (b) and (c) of the Constitution. The question was also raised as to whether the tenets of the Vallabha denomination and its religious practices required that the worship by the devotees should be performed at the private temple and so the existence of public temples was inconsistent with the said tenets and practices. |
