M.P. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR & Anr. v. ST A TE OF KERA LA & Ors.

Shri Jagannath Temple Puri Management Committee represented through its Administrator and Anr. v. Chintamani Khuntia and Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 422; Panna/a/ Bansilai Pitti and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Anr., (1996) 2 SCC 498; Bhuri Nath and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors., (19971 2 SCC 745; State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Shri Sajjan/al Panjawat and Ors., (19741 C 1 SCC 500; Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi and Ors. v State of, [1997) 4 SCC 606; N Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors., [20021 8 SCC 106; Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Anr. v. C.K. Rajan and Ors., [2003) 7 SCC 546 and S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, [1994) 3 SCC 1, relied on. D

3.1. It is not proper to brand all Ministers of leftist Government as persons not believing in temple ,worship. There is no presumption that a Communist or Socialist (who may normally form part of a leftist Council of Ministers) are ipso facto non-believers in god or in temple worship. Such a sweeping allegation is not correct. It depends on each individual approach. The observations in a judgment should not be, it is trite, read E as a ratio. A decision, as is well-known, is an authority of what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. [732-C-D) Narayanan Namboodiri and Ors. v. State of Kera/a, (1985) KLT 629, disapproved. F Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan@ Pappu Yadav and Anr., (2005) 1 SCALE 385 and Haryana State Coop. Land Dev. Bank v. Nee/am, JT (2005) 2 SC 600, relied on. Mura/eedharan Nair v. State of Kera/a, (1990) 1 KLT 874, referred G to.

3.2. The temple is visited by millions every year. Apart from proper management of the funds flowing from these devotees, the Devaswom also owns other properties, runs a college, a guest house, choultries etc., all of which require efficient and prompt management. This is quite H 716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 3 S.C.R. A apart from the spiritual management dealing with religious side which is under the sole control, management and guidance of the Thanthri. It is the secular aspect of the management that is vested in the Management Committee. (733-F-G)

3.3. It is one thing to say that prejudice may be caused if the B management of temple is entrusted to a person who has no faith in temple worship but it is another thing to say that such persons be nominated by those who would not only be believers in God but also in temple worship. The function of a statutory and constitutional authority while exercising its power of nomination cannot be equated with the C power of management of a temple, particularly, in relation to the religious aspects involved therein. (733-H; 734-A-B]

3.4. There is no case for the appellant that Section 4 insofar as it provides for the constitution of the Managing Committee is violative of any rights. If this be the position, the claim that the right of nomination D has not been vested .in a proper body is beside the point. The right to manage the Devaswom was at the inception of the Constitution vested in the two he~·editary trustees. The denomination of devotees at large had no say or right in the administration - secular or religious - of the temple. At1icle 26 does not create any rights in any denomination which it never had. It only safeguards and guarantees existing rights, which such a E denomination had. Since the denomination had no right prior to January 26, 1950, they cannot claim any such rights after the enactment of the impugned Act. If it had no such right even in the matter of management of the temple, it is all the more so in the matter of the constitution of the "electorate". (734-B-F) F

#4. A wrong concession of law cannot bind the parties, particularly when the constitutionality of a statue is in question.