Does Article 26 Protect Removal of a Mathadhipati? Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court has held that where a Mathadhipati is sought to be removed under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, it is incumbent upon the Dharmika Parishad to strictly follow the principles of natural justice, as such action may affect not only the religious institution under the Mathadhipati's control but also devotees and the public at large.

A Bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar said the removal of a Mathadhipati from the office of the head of a religious institution is not an ordinary administrative act. It involves substantive civil rights, including the right to hold a religious office and pursue one's spiritual vocation.

Holding that substantive compliance with the principle of audi alteram partem is non-negotiable in such cases, Court observed that a person facing removal must be made aware of the allegations and the material relied upon against him.

"Without supply of relied upon documents qua the allegation, if any, meaningful rebuttal could not be possible. Therefore, in terms of the language used in the Statute, principles of natural justice are required to be adhered to in the sense as specified," the Bench said.

Why Did the Supreme Court Stress Audi Alteram Partem in Mathadhipati Removal Cases?

Court said the constitutional guarantee of procedural fairness, flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution and embodied in the principle of audi alteram partem, applies with full force to such quasi-judicial proceedings.

It explained that unless a person is informed of the precise allegations, the evidence supporting them and the material forming the basis of the proposed action, the opportunity to defend himself becomes illusory. The supply of relevant documents, the Bench said, is the most basic requirement of procedural fairness because no person can be expected to answer a case that has not been fully disclosed to him.

When Is Service of Notice by Affixation Valid?

Referring to Order V Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, Court held that substituted service by affixation cannot be reduced to a mere technical formality. Such service is valid only when notice is affixed at a house where the person concerned actually and ordinarily resides.

The Bench added that once the State itself has dispossessed a person and taken complete control of the premises, the legal fiction of constructive notice through affixation on the door loses its validity.

What Did the Court Say About Article 26 and the Concept of Mahantship?

Court underscored that Article 26 guarantees a religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion and, subject to law, administer its property. While the State may regulate the administration of math properties through valid laws, any removal of a spiritual head must be carried out through procedures that are demonstrably fair, neutral and minimally invasive.

The Bench also noted that the concept of Mahantship or Mathadhipati combines both office and property, duties and personal interests. These elements are inseparable. Any arrangement that permanently separates the religious functions of a Mathadhipati from administrative and secular functions, while allowing another person to indefinitely manage the latter, would undermine the very concept of Mahantship.

Can Article 142 Be Used to Fill Procedural Gaps?

The Supreme Court observed that its powers under Article 142 are supplementary in nature and are not constrained by the ordinary limitations of statutory remedies. Such powers can be invoked to bridge legal or procedural gaps and to create a one-time, case-specific mechanism where the existing framework is structurally incapable of curing an infirmity.

Relief Granted to Arjun Dass

The observations came while allowing a civil appeal filed by Arjun Dass and setting aside an Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment that had upheld his removal as Mathadhipati of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt in Tirupati.

Directing that the appellant would continue to hold the status of Mathadhipati, Court permitted him to participate in the religious and spiritual activities of the Mutt.

"Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, as an institution of immense religious, cultural and historical significance, and its devotees, are entitled to a resolution of the present controversy through a process, that is and appears to be, free, fair and unbiased," the Bench said.

To assist in the administration of the Mutt, the court constituted an Administrative Committee headed by Justice (Retd.) Duppala Venkata Ramana, former judge of the Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh High Courts.

Other members of the committee include Swami Madhav Prapanna Charya, Manish Kapooria, IPS (Retd.), Y V Raviprasad, Senior Advocate, Manish Taskar, Chartered Accountant, and a nominee of the Endowment Department to be appointed within a week.

Court also constituted a one-member independent enquiry committee headed by retired District Judge Boddepalli Rama Rao to investigate allegations that Arjun Dass sold Mutt properties, purchased assets in his own name and misappropriated funds.

Background of the Case

Arjun Dass was a disciple of Sri Devender Dassji Varu, the then Mathadhipati of the Mutt. He was appointed as a Pujari in 1975 and later became Adhikari in 1985. In 1990, he was appointed Interim Mahant and was eventually appointed permanent Mahant of the Mutt in 2000.

Case Title: Arjun Dass Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bench: Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar

Date of Judgment: May 29, 2026