Mathadhipati के Secular Functions को स्थायी रूप से Govt Officer को सौंपना Mahantship की अवधारणा को नकारता है; Article 26 का उल्लंघन: Supreme Court

<p>The Supreme Court has held that the State cannot permanently separate the religious and secular functions of a Mathadhipati and vest the latter in a government-appointed administrator, observing that such an arrangement would amount to a denial of the very concept of Mahantship protected under Article 26 of the Constitution.</p><p>A Bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar made the observations while setting aside the Andhra Pradesh Government orders for the removal of Arjun Dass as the Mathadhipati of the historic Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt in Tirupati, and quashing orders appointing a "Fit Person" to administer the Mutt.</p><p>Referring to precedent in Shirur Mutt, the Court noted that in the conception of Mahantship, both the elements of office and property, of duties and personal interest, are blended together and neither can be detached from the other.</p><p>The Mahant is not merely the manager of the temporalities of the Mutt rather, he is the spiritual head and superior of a fraternity of disciples, charged with the propagation of the doctrines of the sampradaya to which the math belongs. The Court said that this concept is recognized by the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987</p><p>"The conception of Mahantship" combines both spiritual and temporal responsibilities, the Court said, adding that "both the elements of office and property, of duties and personal interest, are blended together and neither can be detached from the other."</p><p>The Court further held:</p><p>"Any arrangement which seeks to permanently bifurcate the religious functions of a Mathadhipati from the administrative and secular functions, or which vests the latter in a 'Fit Person' or a Custodian for an indefinite period notwithstanding that the lawful Mathadhipati continues in office, would amount to a denial of the very concept of Mahantship."</p><p>Emphasising the constitutional protection available to religious denominations under Article 26, the Court said that while the State may regulate the administration of religious properties through valid legislation, deprivation of the office of a spiritual head can be carried out only through procedures that are "demonstrably fair, neutral, and minimally invasive."</p><p>Background</p><p>The case arose from proceedings initiated against Arjun Dass, the 21st Mahant of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, a prominent religious institution associated with the Tirumala temple. Arjun Dass has been associated with the Mutt since 1970 and was appointed permanent Mahant in 2000 after being recognised by the Akhil Bharatiya Sri Panch Digambar Ani Akhada Panchayat as the sole surviving disciple of his predecessor.</p><p>His tenure, however, witnessed prolonged disputes with the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Department. In 2003, the Department attempted to set aside his appointment and retain control over the Mutt's secular affairs. The Andhra Pradesh High Court later d