http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 18  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA AND SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE PURI MANAGEMENTCOMM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHINTAMANI KHUNTIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/09/1997

BENCH: SUHAS C. SEN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3979 OF 1995                       J U D G M E N T Sen,J.      The point  that falls for consideration in this case is whether the  right of the temple attendants to get a portion of the  offerings made  to  the  deity  in  a  temple  is  a religious right  or the  manner of  collecting and getting a share of  the offerings  is a  religious rite of the temple. The answer  must be  in the  negative  in  both  the  cases. Collection  and  distribution  of  monies  start  after  the devotees had  done their worship and made their offerings to the deity.  Offerings of fruit. flower and money are made to the deity  by the  devotees.   This is  done as  a token  of devotion of  the pilgrims.   But  after the  worship by  the devotees is over, sweeping, collecting and distribution of a portion of  offerings to  the temple  staff are not parts of any religious  exercise.    The  manner  of  collection  and distribution of  a portion of the offerings among the temple staff may have a history of long usage but such usage cannot be part of religious practice or a religious right.      This case  has  been  brought  by  a  group  of  temple attendants called "Sevaks" contending that they are entitled to a  share out  of the collections of the offerings made by the devotees  inside the Jagannath temple at Puri.  They are traditionally intitled to the offerings made by the devotees (Veta and  Pindika).   This traditional method of collection of Veta  Pindika and  also of  getting a portion of the same cannot be  interfered  with  because  that  will  amount  to violation of  guarantee of  religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.      Collection and  distribution of money even though given as offerings  to the  deity cannot  be a religious practice. The offerings whether of money, fruits, flowers or any other thing are  given to the deity.  It has been said in the Gita that "whoever offers leaf, flower, fruit or water to me with devotion I  accept that".   The religious practice ends with these  offerings.   Collection  and  distribution  of  these offerings or  retention of  a portion  of the  offerings for maintenance and upkeep of the temple are secular activities.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 18  

These activities  belong to  the domain  of  management  and administration of  the temple.  We have to examine this case bearing this  basic principle  in mind.   The offerings made inside the Temple are known as Veta and Pindika.  Veta means the offerings  that are given to Lord Jagannath at specified places in  the Temple.   Pindika  means offerings  that  are given on the pedestal of the deities.      The case  made out on behalf of the respondents is that their duties  and rights  are all contained in the Record of Rights of  the Temple and among their rights is the right to get one half of the garland offered to the deity.  They take all  offerings  like  fruits,  betel,  batelnuts,  coconuts, sweets, mirrors and other things.  They stand near the Inner three Bada  holding jugs  (Gadu).  Whatever Veta and Pindika is thrown  they collect them and keep in the Gadu.  There is an activity  called "Pochha"  which means that whatever Veta Pindika is  thrown at the throne, the Mekaps collect them by stretching their  hands to the extent they reach and put the amounts so  collected in  the Gadu.   According to the Sanad (grant), they have to clean the throne keeping their feet at the edge  of the  throne but  now for  many days,  they  are cleaning it  standing at the bottom of the throne.  Whatever offerings fall  down from  the throne, they collect from the floor and  put in  the Gadu.   Similarly,  if anything falls from the  walls, they collect and place it in the Gadu.  All these collections  made at  or near  the throne of the deity and various  other  places  in  the  Temple  are  ultimately counted.   Small coins are taken by them.  They get one anna share in  a rupee of the entire collection and the remaining Pindika income is deposited in the Temple office.      This practice,  according to  the Sevaks  (Mekaps),  is going on for a number of years and is recorded in the Record of Rights,  and therefore,  cannot be  regarded as a secular activity.   Their further contention is that by Section 28-B of Shri  Jagannath Temple  Act, 1954 which was introduced by an amendment with effect from 3.5.1983, serious encroachment has been made on the religious rights of the Sevaks.  It has been provided  by Section  28-B of  the Act that one or more receptacles (Hundis)  may be  placed at  such places  as the Temple Committee may think fit inside the Temple for placing of offerings  by the  devotees visiting  the Temple.  It has categorically been  provided that  no person (which includes Sevaks) can  go near  or interfere  in any  manner with  any hundi installed in the Temple.  However, no authorisation is needed for  going near  a Hundi  for the bonafide purpose of placing offerings  therein.  It has further been provided by sub-section (5)  of Section  28-B that  no  Sevak  shall  be entitled to  any share  in the offerings placed in the Hundi installed.   This, according  to the  Sevaks  is  a  serious interference with  their right  to get one anna in the rupee of the total collection of the offerings made in the Temple. This provision  not only  interferes  with  their  religious right but also their right of property.      To examine  this contention,  the history of the tussle between the  Sevaks and the persons in the management of the Temple has  to be  borne in  mind.  Puri Jagannath Temple is one of  the important  places of  pilgrimage for the Hindus. People from  all over India come in thousands daily for Puja and Darshan.   The Sevaks of various kinds have tried to run the Temple  to their  advantage.   Religious  considerations have  been   farthest  to  their  thoughts  and  activities. Various measures have been taken by the Government about the superintendence, control  and management  of the  affairs of the Temple  to ensure  that religious practices are properly carried out  and the  pilgrims can  worship the deities in a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 18  

proper manner.   The  background of  facts which  led to the passing of  Shri Jagannath  Temple  Act  of  1954  has  been narrated in  the Object  Clause of  the Act.   It  has  been stated that  long prior  to and  after the British conquest. the superintendence,  control and  management of the affairs of the  Temple have  been in  direct concern  of  successive Rules.   Governments and their officers.  Attempts were made by the  Government to  regulate the management of the Temple from time  to time.   As  early  as  on  28th  April,  1809, Regulation IV  was passed by the Governor-General in Council to ensure  proper management  of the  Temple.   The Raja  of Khurda, later  designated the  Raja  of  Puri,  came  to  be entrusted with  the management  of the affairs of the Temple and its  properties as  Superintendent.    Even  thereafter, grave and  serious  irregularities  were  committed  in  the administration  of   temple  which  led  the  Government  to intervene on  a number  of occasions.   It  was noted in the object clause  that in  spite of  this  Regulation  IV,  the Administration had  deteriorated and  a situation had arisen rendering  it   expedient  to   re-organise  the  scheme  of management of  the affairs  of the Temple and its properties and provide better administration and governance therefor in supersession of all previous laws.      The first  step in the process to bring about reform in the management  of the  Jagannath Temple  was The  Puri Shri Jagannath Temple  (Administration) Act  1952.  It was stated in the objects and reasons of that Act :      "In the  absence  of  any  guidance      from  the   Raja   and   sufficient      contribution  from   him  for   the      regular expenses of the Temple, the      scheduled      and      disciplined      performance  of   the   Nitis   has      suffered beyond imagination and the      Raj  has   practically   lost   all      control over  the different  Sebaks      and other temple servants.      Economic    rivalry    and    moral      degeneration of  the  servants  and      Sebaks has  divested  them  of  all      sense  of   duty  and  co-operation      Specific endowments  are  regularly      misapplied   and   misappropriated.      Strikes amongst various classes are      of common  occurrence.    The  non-      availability at the appointed hours      of  the   Mahaprasad  coveted   and      adored by  millions of  pilgrims is      always there  in these  days.   The      lapses   into    unorthodoxy    has      resulted in  extremely  unorthodoxy      has    resulted     in    extremely      unhygienic  conditions  inside  the      Temple and  commission  of  heinous      crimes  even   within  the   Temple      precincts is  not rare  - even  the      image of  - the  deity has  been at      times  defiled   and  its  precious      jewellery  removed,     peace   and      solemnity  inside  the  Temple  has      given way to sheer goondaism and it      is  mainly   the  servants  of  the      Temple  that  make  up  the  unruly      elements   responsible   for   such      lawless state of affairs."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 18  

    This recital  in the  object clause  of the Act goes to show the  Sevaks were  not inspired  by any religious fervor and wee  not running the temple for religious purposes.  The Raja had  practically been  robbed of  all powers of control and all  sorts of  evil practices  were  being  carried  out inside the  Temple by  the Sevaks  and other Servants of the temple.   In order  to put a stop to this sort of practices, the Puri  Shri Jagannath  Temple (Administration)  Act, 1952 was passed.   The  Act empowered  the  State  Government  to appoint a  Special Officer  for preparation of the Record of Rights including  the rights  and duties of different Sevaks and Pujaris  and other persons connected with the Seva-puja, management of  the temple and its endowments.  The last step was necessary  because  some  valuable  properties  of  Lord Jagannath had  mysteriously disappeared.   The Record was to be prepared  by the  Special Officer after examining all the documents  connected  with  the  temple  and  after  hearing objections from  all the interested parties.  The Record was also to  be examined  by the  local District  Judge.   After considering  the  objections,  the  District  Judge  had  to finally approve  and publish  the  Record  in  the  Official Gazette.  The State Government was empowered by Section 7 to make rules  in consonance  with  the  published  Record  for management of the temple.      Pursuant to  the provisions  of  this  Act,  a  Special Officer was  appointed.   A Record of Rights as envisaged by the Act was prepared by the Special Officer in which various duties and  functions related  to the  persons including the Pujaris, Sevaks  and  other  servants  of  the  temple  were enumerated of  which many  of the activities like collection and division  of the  monies  and  other  offerings  by  and between the  various Sevaks  were of  secular nature.    The Record of  Rights is  not a collection of religious rites to be observed  inside the  temple.   The object  of the Act of 1952 was  to curb  the atrocities  being  committed  by  the sebaks.    A  Record of  Right was necessary to pinpoint the various duties to be discharged by Pujaris, Sevaks and other attendants and the manner of doing these duties.      After the  Record of  Rights was prepared under the Act of 1952,  the next  step to  ameliorate the condition inside the temple and curb the atrocities that were going on in the name of religion Shri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1954. This  Act was  passed "in supersession of all previous laws, regulations and arrangements, having regard to ancient customs and  usages and the unique and traditional nitis and rituals contained in the Record of Rights prepared under the Act of  1952".   By this  Act, a Committee of Management was formed.  The administration and governance of the temple and its endowments  vested in  the Committee.  The Committee was to be  a body  corporate having  a perpetual  succession and common seal  and could  sue and  be sued  (Section 5).   The Committee was  headed by  the Raja  of Puri and comprised of various other  persons like  Collector of  the District, the Administrator of  the Temple  and four  persons nominated by the State  Government from  among the  Sevaks of the temple. The rights  and privileges of the Raja of Puri in respect of the Gajapati Maharaja Seva wee fully protected by Section 8.      The  Committee   was  empowered   to  constitute   sub- committees to  deal with  (a) finance.  (b)  Nitis  and  (c) matters relating to Ratna Bhandar. The Act  also provided  for appointment of Administrator and officers to  assist him (Section 19).  The Administrator was made  responsible   for  the  custody  of  all  records  and properties o  the temple  and was authorised to "arrange for proper collection  of offerings made in the Temple" (Section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 18  

21).     Among  the  various  duties  of  the  Administrator enumerated in the section 21 were :      "(f) to decide disputes relating to      the  collection,   distribution  or      apportionment  of  offerings;  fees      and other  receipts in  cash or  in      kind received  from the  members of      the public.      (g) to  decide disputes relating to      the rights  privileges, duties  and      obligations   of   sevaks,   office      holders and  servants in respect of      seva-puja   and    nitis,   whether      ordinary or special in nature and:      (h) to  require various  sevaks and      other   persons    to   do    their      legitimate  duties   in   time   in      accordance  with   the   record-of-      rights"      The first  challenge to  this Act  came from  the  Raja Birakishore, Raja  of Puri  by way  of a writ petition.  The Raja raised  a number  of Constitutional  issues challenging the validity of the Act.  It was contended that the Raja had been  deprived   of  property   without  any   compensation, Secondly, it  was contended  that he  had the  sole right of superintendence and  management of the temple and that right could  not   be   taken   away   without   giving   adequate compensation.   The Act  was further  attacked on the ground that it  was discriminatory and was hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. inasmuch  as the  Temple had  been singled out for  special  legislation.    It  was  also  contended  that Articles 26,27  and 28 of the Constitution had been violated by the  provisions of the Act.  Lastly it was contended that proposed utilisation  of the  temple funds  was for purposes alien to  the interests  of the  deity, was illegal an ultra vires.   The case,  Raja Birakishore v.  The State of Orissa (1964) 7  SCR 32,  was heard by a Constitution Bench of this court at  great length.   Various provisions of the Act were set out  in  the  judgment  including  Section  15  and  21. Special mention  was also  made of  Section 21-A  which laid down that  all Sevaks,  office-holders  and  other  servants attached to  the Temple  or in  receipt of any emoluments or perquisites  therefrom   shall,  whether  such  service  was hereditary  or  not,  be  subject  to  the  control  of  the administrator.   Reference was  also made  to the provisions relating to  preparation of  annual budget  and audit of the accounts.  This Court concluded:      "This review  of the  provisions of      the Act shows that broadly speaking      the Act provides for the management      of  the   secular  affairs  of  the      temple and does not interfere, with      the  religious   affairs   thereof,      which   have   to   the   performed      according to  the record  of rights      prepared under  the Act of 1952 and      where there is no such of record of      rights in  accordance  with  custom      and usage obtaining in the Temple."      It was also held that there was no violation of Article 14 by  the impugned  legislation because  the Temple  held a unique position  amongst the  Hindu temples  in the state of Orissa.   As regards  deprivation  of  property,  the  Court pointed out  that the  Raja and  his predecessors always had two distinct  rights with  respect to the Temple.  They were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 18  

Adya Sevaks  of the  Temple and  as such  they  had  certain rights and privileges.  These rights had not been touched by the Act.  They had also a right of management of the temple. It carried no beneficial enjoyment of any property.  The Act had deprived  him of  that right of management and conferred it upon a Committee of which he was the Chairman.      Clause (1)  of Section  15 was  attacked on  the ground that the  Committee had  taken over  power  to  arrange  for proper performance  of Seva-Puja  and of  the Nitis  of  the Temple in  accordance with  the record of rights.   This was an encroachment upon the religious rights of the Raja.  This Court held that there was no invasion of any religious right of the  Raja by this clause.  All that was provided was that it was  the duty  of the  Committee to  arrange  for  proper performance of  Seva-Puja in  accordance with  the record of rights.  It was pointed out:      "Sevapuja  etc.   have  always  two      aspects.     One  aspect   is   the      provision of  materials and  so  on      for the  purpose of  the  sevapuja.      This is  a secular  function.   The      other   aspect    is   that   after      materials etc.  have been provided,      the Sevaks or other persons who may      be entitled  to do  so, preform the      sevapuja   and   other   rites   as      required   by   the   dictates   of      religion.  Clause (1) of Section 15      has nothing  to do  with the second      aspect,  which   is  the  religious      aspect of  sevapuja; it  deals with      the secular  aspect of the sevapuja      and enjoins  upon the committee the      duty  to  provide  for  the  proper      performance of sevapuja and that is      also in  accordance with the record      of rights.   So  that the committee      cannot materials  for  sevapuja  if      the  record  of  rights  says  that      certain  materials  are  necessary.      We are  clearly of the opinion that      cl.  (1)  imposes  a  duty  on  the      committee to look after the secular      part of the sevapuja and leaves the      religious  part   thereof  entirely      untouched.     Further  under  this      clause it  will be  the duty of the      committee to see that those who are      to carry  out the religious part of      the duty  do their duties properly.      But  this   again  is   a   secular      function to  see  that  sevaks  and      other  servants   carry  out  their      duties  properly;   it   does   not      interfere with  the performance  of      religious duties  themselves.   The      attack on  this provision  that  it      interferes   with   the   religious      affairs   of    the   Temple   must      therefore fail."      The attack  on Section 21 which specifically deals with powers and  functions of  the Administrator  to appoint  the employees of  the temple  and to  specify the conditions and safeguards under  which any  Sevak, office-holder or servant will function  and their right to be in possession of jewels

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 18  

or other  valuable  belongings  of  the  Temple,  to  decide disputes, rights.  privileges, duties and obligations of the Sevaks and other servants of the Temple, was repelled on the ground that  these provisions  were with  respect to secular affairs and had no direct impact on the religious affairs of the Temple.   It was also held that Section 21-A was clearly concerned with  the secular  management of  the  Temple  for which disciplinary  powers conferred  on  the  Administrator were necessary  in order  to carry  out the secular affairs. It was  further pointed  out that  no religious denomination had been  deprived of  any right to carry on their religious affairs protected by Article 25 of the Constitution.      After a  detailed analysis of the various provisions of the Act, the Court came to the conclusion that the religious rights of  the Raja or the religious rites to be observed in performance of  Sevapuja were not interfered with in any way by the provisions of the act.      Thereafter, a  Committee was formed.  The management of the Temple  came under statutory control.  One of the things noted by  the management  was that the offerings in the Jugs or That  is placed  at several  places being  accounted  for properly, To deal with this problem, closed receptacles were introduced in  which the  offerings had to be put.  This led to the  first round of litigation by a section of he Sevaks. A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Bairagi Mekap & Anr. v.  Shri Jagannath  Temple Managing Committee, AIR 1972 Orrisa 10,  dismissed the plea of the Khuntias (Sevaks) that placing  of  closed  receptacles  for  collecting  offerings interfered with  their religious  rights.   It was held that the Record  of Rights showed that it included both religious as well  as secular activities.  So far as Veta Pindika were concerned, the  duties of  khuntias were  not  of  religious nature.  It was held:      "With no  ingenuity it  can b  said      that watchmen  by performing  their      duties as watchers or guards can be      deemed   to   be   performing   any      religious  or  spiritual  rites  or      rituals.   So  far  as  Mekaps  are      concerned it  is stated that during      the Saha Mela, three of them remain      at   three    badas   holding   the      receptacles  described   as   Gadu.      Whatever Bheta or Pindika is thrown      near  the   Gadu,  the  receptacle.      Similar  are   their  duties   with      regard to  Bheta and Pindika put on      Thali and  Parakha near the kathas.      This, their  duties are also purely      of secular nature inasmuch as, they      are either  required  to  hold  the      receptacles    or    collect    the      offerings thrown  on the ground and      put  them   in   the   receptacles.      percentage as  remuneration.  It is      difficult  to  agree  with  learned      counsel  for  the  appellants  that      these duties  can in  any manner be      associated  with   the  rites   and      rituals  or   the  nitis  performed      before the deity.  The fact remains      that fact  remains  that  once  the      offerings are  made  the  religious      part  is  over.    The  mekaps  and      Khuntias are  required to guard the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 18  

    places  or   gather  the  offerings      strewn on the floor and put them in      the receptacles.   These  being the      duties of  the plaintiff sevaks, so      far  as   Bheta  and   Pindika  are      concerned, I  have no hesitation in      agreeing with the view taken by the      courts   below    that   they   are      unconnected  with   the   religious      rites.   They are purely of secular      nature.   Therefore, it  is  within      the powers  of the Administrator to      arrange for  proper collections  of      offerings  by   providing  suitable      receptacles to prevent pilferage by      substitution Thalis,  Parakhas  and      Jharis.   Such substitution  of the      receptacles in  no  manner  affects      the performance of the rites of the      plaintiff sevaks."      The  Court,   therefore,  upheld   the  right   of  the management of  the Temple  to place  closed  receptacles  in various parts  of the temple for collection of the offerings in place  of traditional  Jugs and  Thalis.  A Special Leave petition was filed against this judgment in this Court which was dismissed.      Shri Jagannath  Temple Act, 1954 was thereafter amended with effect  from 3.5.1983.   By  the amended  provisions of Section 28-B  and 28-C  a fund  called Shri Jagannath Temple Foundation Fund  was set  up which  has led  to the  present dispute.   The Fund  was to  be administered  by a Committee consisting of  the Chief Minister, the Minister in charge of Law, the  Secretary to the Government in Law Department, the Secretary in  charge of Department of Finance or his nominee and the  Collector of  District Puri.   The administrator of the Temple  was  made  Secretary  of  the  Committee.    The Committee was  empowered with  the  approval  of  the  State Government to  instal one  or more  Hundis at such places in the temple  as it  may think fit for placing of offerings by pilgrims and devotees visiting the Temple.  no person who is not authorised  by the  Administrator  was  to  go  near  or interfere  with  the  Hundi  installed  inside  the  Temple. However, no  authorisation was needed for any person who was going near the Hundi for the bonafide purpose of placing any offering  therein.    It  was  categorically  declared  that notwithstanding anything  to the  contrary contained  in any law, custom,  usage or agreement or in the Record of Rights, no Sevaks  shall be  entitled to  any share in the offerings placed in  the Hundi installed after the commencement of the Jagannath Temple (Amendment) Act, 1983.  It was specifically provided that  the Foundation  Fund  shall  consist  of  all donations and  contributions of  the  amount  exceeding  Rs. 500/- made by any person to the temple or in the name of any deity installed therein other than those which were made for any specific purpose.      The amounts  in the  Foundation Fund had to be invested in long-term fixed deposits with banks approved by the State Government.   The  State  Government  could  also  permit  a portion of  the Fund  to be  utilised for any purpose of the temple as  specified by the State Government.  All interests collected from  the Fund  had to be credited to another fund called Shri  Jagannath Temple  Fund.   Out of  the Jagannath Temple Fund,  an amount  not exceeding fifty per cent had to be paid  to Shri  Jagannath Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Puri. It was  also provided  that an amount not exceeding five per

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 18  

cent of the Jagannath Temple Fund had to be utilised for the welfare of  the  Sevaks.    It  may  be  mentioned  in  this connection that  the monies  lying  in  the  credit  of  the Jagannath Temple  Fund could  be utilised,  inter alia,  for maintenance of  the temple  and its  properties and also for training of  Sevaks to  perform religious  ceremonies in the temple.      A   writ    petition   was    filed   challenging   the constitutional validity  of Sections  28-B (5).  28-C (5)(a) and 28-C  (9) by  some of  the Sevaks.  Their contention was that they  were entitled  to one  Anna  share  in  Veta  and Pindika according  to the Record of Rights.  Originally Veta and Pindika  were collected in receptacles called Thalis and Jharias.   The open  receptacles were  later on  changed  to wooden boxes and then to iron boxes at various places inside the  temple.     According   to  the  writ  petitioners  the provisions of  Section 28-B(1)  introduced by 1983 Amendment were not in consonance with the temple tradition at all.  It provided for  installation of  one or  more  Hundis  in  the Temple  for   placing  offerings  by  pilgrims  or  devotees visiting the Temple.  The Sevaks were not given any right to participate in  the offerings  placed in  the Hundi  It  was contended that  these new  provisions were  contrary to  the custom and usage recorded in the Record of Rights.  Although very may points were taken in the writ petition, at the time of hearing  of the case, the challenge of the petitioner was mainly to  Section 28-B(5) of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 by  which right  of the  Sevaks  for  a  share  in  the collection in  the Hundis  was taken away.  The said section is as follows:      28-B, Installation of Hundi-(1) The      Committee may,  with he approval of      the State  Government, install  one      or  more  receptacles  (hereinafter      referred to as Hundi) at such place      or places  in the  Temple as it may      think fit  for placing of offerings      by  the   pilgrims   and   devotees      visiting the Temple.      X         X       x               X      X           x      (5) Notwithstanding anything to the      contrary  contained   in  any  law,      custom, usage  or agreement  or  is      the  record-of-rights,   no   sevak      shall be  entitled to  any share in      the  offerings   placed  in   Hundi      installed after the commencement of      Shri Jagannath  Temple  (Amendment)      Act,  10 of 1983."      The case  of the writ petitioners before the High Court was  that   the  placement   of  the   Hundis  made  serious encroachment upon  the religious  practice and rights of the Sevaks.   The Sevaks  had got  a right to 1/6th share of the offerings made  in the  temple.   The right of the Sevaks to get 1/6th  share in  the Veta and Pindika did not come to an end merely  because the  offerings were  placed in the newly installed Hundis.   Rights  of the  Sevaks to get a share in the offerings  made by  the pilgrims  constituted ’property’ and was an integral part of the religious rite of performing ’Seva’ to  Lord Jagannath.   These religious rites could not be interfered  with in any manner without violating Articles 25 and 26 o the Constitution of India.  A grievance has been made that one category of Sevaks known as ’Dwaitatapati’ had also been  robbed of  their traditional right to get a share

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 18  

in the  Veta and  Pindika, but  they had been compensated by giving some  money.  Similar compensation has not been given to the  Sevaks.   This amounts  to discriminatory treatment. But the  main thrust  of the  petition is  that the right to receive a  share of  Veta and Pindika is a right to property and this  right cannot  be taken  away  without  payment  of proper compensation.   Therefore,  not  only  the  religious rights  protected   under  Articles   25  and   26  of   the Constitution were  violated but  the provisions  of  Article 300A were also violated by taking away the right to property of the Sevaks.      The Court  held that the right of the petitioner Sevaks to get  a share of Veta and Pindika was a part and parcel of the Seva  performed by  them  according  to  the  Record  of Rights.   This right  to get  a share of the offerings could not be  separated from  the  performance  of  the  religious duties by  the Sevaks.    Deprivation  of  the  Sevaks  from getting a share in the offerings amounted to interference in religious practice  and as  such was hit by Article 25(1) of the Constitution  of India.  The Court held that sub-section (5) of  Section 28-B  and sub-section  (9) of  Section  28-C introduced by the Act 10 of 1983 laying down that the Sevaks shall not  be entitled  to any  share in the offerings which were really  in the  nature of  veta and  Pindika were ultra vires the  Constitution of  India.    The  Court  left  open another question which was pending in appeal in another case as to  whether the  entire  collection  made  in  the  Hundi constituted Veta and Pindika.      Aggrieved  by  this  order,  the  appellants-Management Committee of the Jagannath Temple and also the Administrator have come up in appeal.  The contention of the appellants is that the  Sevaks had no religious right or fundamental right to a  share in  the offerings  made  in  the  temple.    The Amendment Act  which provides  for setting  up of  Hundis at various places of the Temple also provided that a portion of the Temple  Fund be  utilised for  welfare of the Sevaks and also provided  for maintenance of disabled, old-age pension, marriage advance etc.  From all these provisions, the Sevaks were likely  to get  material benefit.   There  was  nothing unconstitutional or  arbitrary in  the amendments  made.  It was pointed  out that  if the  claims of the Sevaks who were the writ  petitioners were  conceded, various other types of Sevaks may  also have  to be  paid out  of the newly created Fund.   The result  will  be  that  the  entire  purpose  of creation of  the Fund  will be  defeated.   Apart  from  the various charitable objects, money was needed for maintenance of the  temple and  also for  providing facilities  for  the pilgrims.   The Hundis  were placed  not in  lieu of  closed receptacles for collection of offerings but are something in addition to these receptacles.  The devotees can, if they so like, make  offerings in the traditional way on the altar or in the closed receptacles.      The first question that falls for determination in this case is  whether the  right of  the Sevaks to get a share of the Veta  and Pindika  as recognised in the Record of Rights is a  religious right.   The  question was specifically gone into in  the case of Bairagi Mekap & Anr.  V. Shri Jagannath Temple Managing   Committee,  AIR 1972  Orissa 10.  The High Court in that case held that the right to get a share in the collection is  a secular right.  The religious ceremony ends when the offerings are made by the devotees.  The collection of the  offerings and  distribution of those offerings among various groups  of Sevaks  and other  servants  were  purely secular activities.  The Special Leave Petition against this judgment of  the High  Court was  dismissed.    But  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 18  

judgment under  appeal, a  contrary view  has been taken. It has been  pointed out on behalf of the respondents that they were not  parties to the first case.  Moreover, the question in this  case is  whether any  religious right of the Sevaks was interfered  with  by  the  new  provisions  of  the  Act introduced in  1983 whereby  Hundis were placed at different places of  the Temple and a declaration was made that Sevaks will not  be entitled  to any portion of the monies given by way of offerings in the Hundis.      A copy  of the  Record of  Rights pertaining  to  Palia Mekaps has  been handed  up in  Court.  The Record of Rights starts with  the recital under the heading "RECORD OF RIGHTS - SHRI  JAGANNATH TEMPLE, PURI - Record of Rights and Duties of Various  Classes of  Sevaks and  Others Employed  for  or connected with  Seva-Puja of  the Temple".  The very heading indicates that  the Record  of Rights  not only  records the rights but  also the duties of various classes of Sevaks and others employed  or connected  with Seva-Puja in the Temple. But all these duties are not religious duties and the manner of discharging  these duties  are not  religious rites.  The Watchman (Palia  Mekap has  to guard the doors of the Temple till the  arrival of  the next  Watchman.   The Watchman has also to verify in the morning after opening the doors of the Sanctum Sanctum whether certain things are in order.  He has also to  check whether  the garments  of the  deities are in order or  not.   This sort  of duty  is an  usual duty  of a Watchman or  Keeper of  the place  and is  of purely secular nature.   It has been noted earlier in this judgment how the offerings made  by  the  devotees  are  to  be  guarded  and collected in Gadus (Jugs) by the Sevaks.  The Sevaks have to do these  jobs because  they have  ben  appointed  for  this purpose For  doing their  work, they  may be  paid salaries. They may  also be  remunerated by  paying a  portion of  the offerings collected  by  them.    Cleaning  of  the  temple, including the  collection of monies lying scattered all over the temple  floor and also from the throne cannot be treated as performance  of any  religious rite.  On the contrary, it is an act of pure and simple collection of money for which a prescribed portion  is given to those who collect the money. We do  not see  it as anything but a way of remunerating the Sevaks for  the jobs  done.  The Sevaks cannot be said to be professing, practising or propagating religion by these acts of collection of money for remuneration.      Now the  Hundis have  been installed.   Section  28B(4) forbids any  person which  includes Sevaks  to go  near  the Hundis unless authorised by the Administrator. Devotees may, however, for  the purpose  of making  offerings go  near the Hundis.  The Sevaks do not have to discharge any duty so far as the Hundis are concerned nor do they get any remuneration by way  of a  share in the offerings made in the Hundis.  It is difficult  to see  how installation  of  the  Hundis  can amount to  interference with  the religious  rights  of  the Sevaks.   It has  to be borne in mind that the offerings are made to  the deities  and not  to the  Sevaks.  The Managing Committee has  a right  to decide  how the monies which have been given as offerings to the deities will be collected and disturbed.   If  there  is  any  change  in  the  method  of collection and  distribution of offerings, the Sevaks cannot be heard  to complain.   The  pilgrims may  yet  ignore  the Hundis and  make offerings to the deities in the traditional way by  making their  offerings at or near the throne.  This right of  the pilgrims  or the  manner of worshipping inside the temple  has not  been taken  away by the Act in any way. The Seva-puja  will go on as usual. What the Act has done is only to  provide for  Hundis where the pilgrims, if they are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 18  

so inclined, may deposit their offerings.      It is  true that  placing of  the Hundis  at  different parts of  the Temple  has the  possibility of  reducing  the income of  the Makaps,  but simultaneously, their duties and responsibilities have  also diminished.  They do not have to keep guard  over the  Hundis nor do they have to collect and deposit the  offerings made  in the  Hundis with  the temple authority.   Collection of  money also  carries with it, the responsibility for  accounting for the money collected.  All these onerous  obligations now stand reduced.  it is not the case of the Sevaks that they have been asked to work without any pay.   Therefore,  in our  view,  there  cannot  be  any question of  violation of  any religious right guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.      The Sevaks cannot also invoke Article 300A in the facts of this  case.   The offerings  that are made to the deities are not  the properties of the Sevaks.  The Sevaks are given a share  in these offerings as remuneration for guarding and collecting the  offerings. They  do not  have  to  discharge these duties  in regard  to  the  monies  deposited  in  the Hundis.   They are not entitled to any share in these monies as of right.  There cannot be any question of deprivation of any right  to property  of the  Sevaks in  the facts of this case.   Merely because  by mistake  some monies were paid to ’Dwaitatapatis’ as compensation will not confer any right on the Sevaks  to get  any such  compensation.  No right can be founded on a mistake committed by the Temple Committee.      Another aspect  of the  case which  has to  be borne in mind is  that the  Act of  1952 and  the Act  of  Puri  Shri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1954 had to be passed to stop  mismanagement of the temple and misappropriation of the offerings  by the  Sevaks.   It  has  been  specifically recorded in  the objects  lause of  the two  Acts  that  the monies were being misappropriated and various heinous crimes were being committed inside the temple premises itself.  The Sevaks had  practically taken  over the  management  of  the temple.   To put  a stop to all these things, these two Acts were passed.   A  Committee was set up to restore discipline and proper  atmosphere so  that the  Puja inside  the Temple could be performed peace dully and properly.      A further aspect of the case is that the Puri Jagannath Temple is  a  very  ancient  structure  which  needs  to  be maintained properly.  One of the objects of creation of Shri Jagannath Temple  Fund is to maintain the temple and also to do various  other chargeable  works  including  training  of Sevaks and  providing medical  relief,  water  and  sanitary arrangement  for   the  worshippers  and  the  pilgrims  and constructing buildings  for their  accommodation.   Money is needed for  all these  purposes.   The Temple  Committee had adopted certain  measures like placing closed receptacles in place of Gadu and also Hundis to ensure proper collection of the offerings.   The  monies are  to be  used for charitable purposes. The  Sevaks cannot be heard to complain that their property and  also religious  rights had  been taken away in the process.   The  placing of the Hundis may restrict their activities and  also reduce their share in the offerings but that does  not amount  to abridgment  of  any  religious  or property right of the Sevaks.      Article 25  guarantees the  right to  profess, practice and propagate  religion.  In order to succeed, in this case, the Sevaks  will have  to establish that the duties assigned to them  including  collection  of  offerings  made  by  the devotees amounted to ’practice of religion’.  The Sevaks are servants of  the temple  and were  subject to the discipline and control  of the  trustees of  temple.  The Administrator

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 18  

has been  empowered  by  Section  21(2)(a)  to  appoint  all officers and  employees of  the temple.   Sub-section (2) of Section 21 also empowers the administrator :      "(e)  to  specify,  by  general  or      special orders  such conditions and      safeguards as  he deems fit subject      to which  any sevak, officer-holder      or servant  shall have the right to      be in possession of jewels or other      valuable belongings of the Temple:      (f) to  decide disputes relating to      the  collection,   distribution  or      apportionment  of  offerings;  fees      and other  receipts in  cash or  in      kind received  from the  members of      the public.      (g) to  decide disputes relating to      the rights, privileges, duties, and      obligations   of   sevaks,   office      holders and  servants in respect of      seva-puja   and    nitis,   whether      ordinary of special in nature; and      (h) to  require various  sevaks and      other   persons    to   do    their      legitimate  duties   in   time   in      accordance  with   the   record-of-      rights."      Section 21-A  of the  Act also  declares  that  Sevaks, officer-holders and  servants attached to the temple whether such service  is hereditary  or not  would be subject to the control of  the Administrator.   The  Administrator has been empowered by  this Section to withhold receipt of emoluments or perquisites,  to suspend  or dismiss any of the aforesaid persons for  various wrongful  acts committed  as set out in the section  or for  any other sufficient cause.  Section 23 which is also important for out purpose is as under:      "23, Establishment  Schedule:-  (1)      After the  appointment of the first      Administrator, he  shall as soon as      may be  prepare and  submit to  the      Committee a  schedule setting forth      the duties, designations and grades      of the  officers and  employees who      may in  his opinion, constitute the      establishment  of  the  Temple  and      embody his proposals with regard to      the salaries and allowances payable      to them,  and such  Schedule  shall      come into  force on approval by the      Committee."      All these  provisions go  to show  that the  Sevaks are appointed by  the Administrator  and have  to  do  the  jobs assigned to  them by  the Administrator.   The Administrator has the  power to take disciplinary proceedings against them whenever  necessary.     The  Administrator  has  also  been empowered to  prepare a  schedule of  the employees  of  the temple and  fix their  salaries etc.  These provisions again go to  show that  the Sevaks are essentially servants of the temple.   The status  of the  Sevaks cannot  by any means be equated with  that of  a Mahant or a Shebait.  The Sevaks do not have  any interest in the properties of the temple which they may have to guard.  They have certain duties during the Seva-Puja but  they are  not allowed  to touch  the deities. They have to clean the throne keeping their feet at the edge of the  throne.   They have to collect whatever Veta Pindika

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 18  

is thrown  o the  throne, standing  on the ground stretching their hands  as far  as  they  reach.    They  bring  golden ornaments from  the Bhandar  Mekaps for  use  in  the  three Dhupas and  give them  to the Puja Pandas and after the Puja they take  back the  ornaments and  deposit the  same in the Bhandar daily.   They  also bring  the Sandal paste from the store house  and give  the same  to the three Pandas.  After the ritual  is over,  they deposit  the silver  plate in the Bhandar.   They also  bring camphor  for  light  and  remain present at  the time  of closure of the doors and sleep near the doors.    These  duties  performed  by  the  Sevaks  are connected with  Seva-Puja but  the actual  Seva-Puja is  not done by  the Sevaks.   The collection of offerings including monies lying  scattered inside  the temple  and also  on the throne of the deities have nothing to do with the Seva-Puja. These duties are performed after the Seva-Puja. These duties are  performed  after  the  seva-Puja  is  completed.    The collection of  monies and  other offerings inside the temple cannot be  treated as  a practice of religion by the Sevaks. They were  simply discharging  their duties assigned to them for remuneration.   Every  activity inside the temple cannot be regarded as religious practice.  Moreover, sub-clause (2) of Article  25 of the Constitution has specifically reserved the right  of the  State for  making any  law ’regulating or restricting any  economic,  financial,  political  or  other secular activity  which may  be  associated  with  religious practice’.   If there  is any financial or economic activity connected with  religious practice,  the State  can make law regulating such  activities even  though the activity may be associated with religious practice.  In the instant case, we are of  the view  that the  various duties  assigned to  the sevaks  are   nothing  but   secular   activities,   whether associated with  religious practice  or not.   Moreover, the State Legislature has, in any event, power to frame laws for regulating collection  and utilisation  of the  offerings of monies made inside the temple by the devotees.      In the  case of  Tilkayat Shri  Govindlalji Maharaj vs. The State  of Rajasthan & Ors. (1964) 1 SCR 561, it was held by the  Constitution Bench  of this  Court that the right to manage the  properties of  a temple  was  a  purely  secular matter and  could not  be regarded  as a  religious practice under Article 25(1) or as amounting to affairs in matters of religion under Article 26(b).  It was held in that case that the provisions  of Nathdwara Temple, 1959 did not contravene Articles 25(1)  and 26(b)  of the  Constitution in so far as the temple  properties are  brought under  the management of the Committee.   t was further held that Section 30(2)(a) of the Act  in so  far as  it conferred on the State Government power to  make rules  in respect  of the  qualifications for holding the office of the Goswami was invalid.      But what  is of  significance for  the purpose  of this case is  that it was held that even though the first part of Section 30(2)(a)  was invalid,  the second  part of the sub- section which enabled the State Government to frame rules in regard to  the allowances  payable to the Goswami was valid. It was held :      "We think  it is but fair that this      part should  be upheld  so  that  a      proper rule  can  be  made  by  the      State  Government  determining  the      quantum of  allowances which should      be paid  to  the  Goswami  and  the      manner in  which it  should  be  so      paid.   We would, therefore, strike      down the first part of Sec.30(2)(a)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 18  

    and uphold  the latter  part of  it      which   has    relation   to    the      allowances payable to the Goswami."      The Court  noticed in that case that the question as to whether a certain practice was of a religious nature or not, as well  as the question as to whether an affair in question is an  affairs in  matters of religion or not, might present difficulties  because  sometimes  practices,  religious  and secular, were  inextricably mixed  up.  But the Court had no hesitation in  holding that  even though the State could not assume the  power of  laying down the qualifications for the holding of  the office  of Goswami  which had  to be done in accordance with  the ancient  rules, yet, the State was free not only  to fix the remuneration payable to the Goswami but also the manner of such payment.  In other words, payment of remuneration  to  a  holder  of  the  religious  office,  in whatever from, is not a religious activity.  The State could modify the manner and quantum of such remuneration by law.      In the  instant case,  we see  no  why  the  Government cannot frame  rules regulating  the manner of payment of the Sevaks.  They may be paid by giving them a percentage of the total collections  made by them inside the temple.  They may also be  remunerated in  some other  way.   But  the  Sevaks cannot, as  a matter  of right  religious or temporal, claim that the  entire offerings made in the temple whether in the Hundis or in the closed receptacles or anywhere else must be taken into  account for  fixing the  commission  payable  to them.      In the  case of Sri Venkataramana Devaru & Ors. vs. The State of  Mysore &  Ors. (1958) SCR 895, the validity of the Madras  Temple   Entry  Authorisation   Act  came   up   for consideration.   By this Act the disability of Harijans from entering  into  Hindu  public  temples  was  removed.    The trustees of Sri Venkataramana contended tat it was a private temple and  therefore was outside the scope of the Act, This plea was rejected.  it was held in that case that the rights of a  religious denomination  to manage  its own  affairs in matters of  religion under  Art.26(b) were  subjected to and controlled  by  a  law  protected  by  Art.25(2)(b)  of  the Constitution.  it was further held :      "The   expression    ’matters    of      religion’ occurring in Art.26(b) of      the Constitution includes practices      which are regarded by the community      as part  of its  religion and under      the ceremonial  law  pertaining  to      temples, who  are entitled to enter      into them  for  worship  and  where      they  are  entitled  to  stand  for      worship and  how the  worship is to      be conducted  are  all  matters  of      religion."      This case,  however, does  not lay down that collection of money  given by  way of offerings inside the temple after the worship  is over,  is  to  be  treated  as  a  religious practice.   In fact,  collection of  money starts  when  the religious practice ends.      In the  case of  P.V.Bheemsena Rao  vs. Sirigiri  Pedda Yella Reddi  & Ors. (1962) 1 SCR 339, the dispute related to an Inam  grant.   In that  case this  Court pointed out that there was  a distinction between a grant for an office to be remunerated by  the use of land and a grant of land burdened with service  was well known in Hindu Law.  The former was a case of  a service  grant and was resumable when the service was not  performed.   The latter  was not a service grant as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 18  

such but  a grant in favour of a person though burdened with service and  its resumption  will depend  upon  whether  the circumstances in  which  the  grant  was  made  establish  a condition that  it was  resumable if  the  service  was  not performed.      In the  case  before  us,  the  Sevaks  have  not  been remunerated by  grant of  land while in service.  One of the jobs assigned  to the Sevaks is collection of money given as offering by  the pilgrims.   The  Sevaks were entrusted with the duty  of collecting the money and handing it over to the proper authority.  As a matter of practice they were allowed a small  percentage of  the collection of the offerings made to the  deities.   There is  nothing  religious  about  this collection of money by Sevaks.      In the case of Seshammal & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3  SCR  815,  a  Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court examined  whether   the  Tamil   Nadu  Hindu  Religious  and Charitable Endowments  Act, 1959, as amended in 1970, had in any way  violated Articles  25 and  26 of  the Constitution. Section 55  of the Act as amended was under challenge.  This Court upheld  the validity  of the amendment by holding that Section 28 directed the trustee to administer the affairs of the temple  in accordance  with the  terms of  the trust  or usage  of   the  institution.    The  Court  held  that  the appointment of  Archaka was  a secular act even though after appointment.  Archaka had to discharge religious duties. His Position was  that of  a servant subject to the disciplinary authority of  the trustee.   The  trustee could inquire into the  conduct  of  such  servant  and  dismiss  him  for  any misconduct.  The Court observed.      "In  view  of  sub-section  (2)  of      Section  55,   as  it   now  stands      amended, the  choice of the trustee      in the  matter of appointment of an      Archaka is no longer limited by the      operation of  the rule  of next-in-      line of succession in temples where      the  usage   was  to   appoint  the      Archaka    on     the    hereditary      principle.    The  trustee  is  not      bound to  make the  appointment  on      the sole  ground that the candidate      is the  next-in-line of  succession      to  the   last  holder  alone,  the      trustee  is   released   from   the      obligation  imposed   on   him   by      section 28  of the Principal Act to      administer    the     affairs    in      accordance with  that part  of  the      usage of  a temple  which  enjoined      hereditary   appointments.      The      legislation in  this respect, as we      have shown, does not interfere with      any religious practice or matter of      religion  and,  therefore,  is  not      invalid".      It was  held that an Archaka had never been regarded as a spiritual head.  he was a servant of the temple subject to the discipline  and control  of the trustee as recognised by the unamended  Section 56  of  the  Act.    That  being  his position the  act of  his appointment  by  the  trustee  was essentially secular.   Merely because after appointment, the Archaka performed worship was no ground for holding that his appointment was  either a  religious practice or a matter of religion.   he owed  his appointment to a secular authority.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 18  

it was  also held  in that  case that  what  constituted  an essential part of a religion or religious practice had to be decided by  the Courts  with reference  to the doctrine of a particular religion  including practices which were regarded by the community as a part of its religion.      This Court  held that  the hereditary  principle in the appointment of  Archakas had  been adopted and accepted from antiquity  and   had  also  been  fully  recognised  in  the unamended Section 55 of the Act.  But the change effected by the amendment  to Section  55 namely,  the abolition  of the principle of  next-in-the line of succession was not invalid because the  usage was  a secular and not a religious usage. An Archaka  was not  a spiritual  head.   He was  a  servant subject to  the discipline  and control  of the  trustee  as recognised by  unamended Section  56 of  the Act.  The Court observed as under :      "The   Archaka   has   never   been      regarded as a spiritual head of any      institution.     He   may   be   an      accomplished person, well versed in      the Agamas and rituals necessary to      be performed  in a  temple  but  he      does  not  have  the  status  of  a      spiritual head.    Then  again  the      assumption made  that  the  Archaka      may be  chosen in a variety of ways      is not  correct.   The Dharam-Karta      or   the    Shebait    makes    the      appointment and  the Archaka  is  a      servant of the temple.  It has been      held  in  K  Seshadri  Aiyangar  V.      Ranga Bhattar  I.L.R. 35 Madras 631      that  even   the  position  of  the      hereditary Archaka  of a  temple is      that of  a servant  subject to  the      disciplinary power  of the trustee.      The trustee  can enquiry  into  the      conduct  of   such  a  servant  and      dismiss him for misconduct."      On the  basis of  this principle,  this Court held that the Amendment  Act which empowered the trustees to appoint a fit person  to be Archaka to do away with the requirement of hereditary appointment  was not violative or Articles 25 and 26 of  the Constitution  in any  way That  the Archakas  wee discharging certain  religious functions  inside the  temple was not  disputed. A distinction was drawn between religious and secular functions discharged by the Archakas.      Our attention  was drawn  to a  recent decision of this Court in Pannalal Bansilal Pitti and Others v. State of A.P. and Another.  (1996) 2 SCC 498, where one of the points that came up for consideration was the validity of Section 144 of the  Andhra   Pradesh   Charitable   and   Hindu   Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.  Section 144 did away with the  system of  payment of  a share  of offerings  made "either in kind or in cash or both by the devotees either in Hundi, plate or otherwise" in the temples of Andhra Pradesh. Provisions  of   this  Section   applied  to   any  trustee, Dharmakarta,  Mutawalli,   any  office-holder   or   servant including an  Archaka or  Mirasidar.   The Court  upheld the validity of  the abolition  of the  traditional  emoluments. The Court  held that  the object  of the  Act was to prevent misuse of  the trust  funds for  personal benefits.  The Act was passed  on the  basis of  a report  of  Challa  Kondaiah Commission.   That being  the position, it was held that the legislative wisdom behind the abolition of the emoluments to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 18  

various persons  connected with  the  temple  could  not  be doubted by the Court.      We were  also referred  to two other decisions of  this Court in  the cases  of A.S.Narayana  Dekshituly v. State of A.P. and  Others, 91996)  9 SCC 548 and Bhuri Nath & Ors. v. The State  of Jammu  & Kashmir  & Ors. JT 1997 (1) S.C. 456. These  two   judgments  have   no  direct   bearing  on  the controversy now  before us.   It is unnecessary for us to go into the questions decided in these judgments and we refrain from doing  so.   However, we  are not  to be  understood as subscribing to the views expressed therein.      A review  of all these judgments goes to shows that the consistent view  of this  Court has  been that  although the State cannot  interfere with freedom of a person to profess, practise and propagate his religion, the State, however, can control the  secular matters  connected with  religion.  All the activities  in  or  connected  with  a  temple  are  not religious   activities.   The  management  of  a  temple  or maintenance of discipline and order inside the temple can be controlled by  the State.   If  any law is passed for taking over the  management of a temple it cannot be struck down as violative of  Article 25  or Article 26 of the Constitution. The management  of the  temple is a secular act.  The temple authority  may   also  control  the  activities  of  various servants of  the temple.   The  disciplinary power  over the servants of  the temple, including the priests, may be given to the  Temple Committee appointed by the state.  The Temple Committee can  decide the  guantum and  manner of payment of remuneration to  the servants.   Merely  because a system of payment is prevalent for a number of years, is no ground for holding that  such system  must continue for all times.  The payment of  remuneration to  the temple  servants was  not a religious act but was of purely secular nature.      In view  of these principles laid down in the aforesaid cases and having regard to the facts of this case, we are of the view  that the installation of the Hundis for collection of offerings  made by  the  devotees  inside  the  Jagannath Temple at  Puri did  not violate the religious rights of the Sevaks of  the Temple  in any  manner even though the sEvaks were denied  any share  out of  the offerings  made  in  the Hundis.   Section 28-B  of the  Act cannot be struck down as violative of religious or property rights of the sevaks.      We are  also of  the view that it was open to the State to set  up the  Foundation Fund  out of  donations exceeding five hundred  rupees made  to the  temple.  The Sevaks could not claim  any share  out of  the donations or contributions made to the Foundation Fund as of right.  Sub-section (9) of Section 28-C was validity enacted.      We hold  that the  amended Section  28-B ad sub-section (9) of  section 28-C  of Shri  Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 do not contravene the provisions of Articles 25(1), 26 or 300-A of the Constitution of India in any manner.      The appeal is, therefore, allowed.  The judgment of the High Court  under appeal  dated 5th  October,  1993  is  set aside.  There will be no order as to costs.      CIVIL APPEAL NO 2979 OF 1995      In view of our above judgment in C.A. No. 3978 of 1995, this appeal is also allowed with no order as to costs.