Case Summary
| Citation | Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore 1958 SCR 895: AIR 1958 SC 255 |
| Keywords | harmonious rule of construction |
| Facts | In the village of Mannampady, there is an ancient temple dedicated to Sri Venkatramana, which is renowned for its sanctity. The petitioners in this case were the trustees and worshippers of the Sri Venkataramana Temple located in Moolky, South Kanara District (formerly part of Mysore State). Traditionally, certain segments of Hindu society, commonly referred to as “untouchables,” were prohibited from entering the inner sanctum (garbhagriha) of the temple, although they were permitted to worship from outside. The Madras Temple Entry Authorization Act of 1947, which became applicable in the region following the reorganization of states, aimed to abolish untouchability and allow all classes and sections of Hindus to enter and worship in temples. The petitioners challenged the applicability of this Act to their temple, contending that the exclusion was based on long-standing customs and practices, and that the Act interfered with their right to manage their religious institution under Article 26 of the Constitution of India, particularly concerning the right to maintain its denominational character. The subordinate judge dismissed their suit. An appeal against this decision was filed in the High Court of Madras, which ruled in favor of the appellants. |
| Issues | Is the Sri Venkataramana Temple at Moolky, a temple as defined in s. 2 (2) of Madras Act V of 1947? If it is a denominational temple, are the plaintiffs entitled to exclude all Hindus other than Gowda Saraswath Brahmins from entering into it for worship, on the ground that it is a matter of religion within the protection of Art. 26(b) of the Constitution ? |
| Contentions | Petitioner contended that the temple belonged to a specific religious denomination and that allowing all Hindus into the inner sanctum would violate their religious practices and customs. |
| Law Points | The Court held that Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, which opens Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus, serves as a provision for social reform and takes precedence over the rights guaranteed under Article 26, specifically the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. The Court noted that both provisions hold equal authority and are not subject to one another. The established rule of construction states that when two provisions in an enactment cannot be reconciled, they should be interpreted in a manner that allows both to have effect, which is known as the rule of harmonious construction. Therefore, the Court concluded that Article 26(b) must be understood in light of Article 25(2)(b). It found that the Sri Venkataramana Temple was a public religious institution, even if it was managed by a specific denomination. Once a temple is classified as public, the right of all sections of Hindus to worship there cannot be denied based on customs or practices that perpetuate untouchability. In this case, it is possible to protect the rights of the appellants on special occasions without undermining the rights declared by Article 25(2)(b). In the Court’s judgment, the decree issued by the High Court strikes a fair balance between the rights of the Hindu public under Article 25(2)(b) and those of the appellants’ denomination under Article 26(b), and it is not subject to objection. Thus, the Court had no reservations about the modifications made to the decree by the High Court. |
| Judgement | The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal made by the temple trustees, upholding the applicability of the Madras Temple Entry Authorization Act of 1947 to the Sri Venkataramana Temple. As a result, all classes and sections of Hindus are entitled to enter and worship in all areas of the temple, including the inner sanctum. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J. – The substantial question of law, which arises for decision in this appeal, is whether the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion guaranteed under Article 26(b) is subject to, and can be controlled by, a law protected by Article 25(2)(b), throwing open a Hindu public temple to all classes and sections of Hindus.
2. In the District of South Kanara which formed until recently part of the State of Madras and is now comprised in the State of Mysore, there is a group of three villages, Mannampady, Bappanad and Karnad collectively known as Moolky Petah; and in the village of Mannampady, there is an ancient temple dedicated to Sri Venkataramana, renowned for its sanctity. It is this institution and its trustees, who are the appellants before us. The trustees are all of them members of a sect known as Gowda Saraswath Brahmins. It is said that the home of this community in the distant past was Kashmir, that the members thereof migrated thence to Mithila and Bihar, and finally moved southwards and settled in the region around Goa in sixty villages. They continued to retain their individuality in their new surroundings, spoke a language of their own called Konkani, married only amongst themselves, and worshipped idols which they had brought with them. Subsequently, owing to persecution by the Portuguese, they migrated further south, some of them settling at Bhatkal and others in Cochin. Later on, a chieftain who was ruling over the Moolky area brought five of these families from Bhatkal, settled them at Mannampady, erected a temple for their benefit and installed their idol therein, which came to be known as Tirumalaivaru or Venkataramana, and endowed lands therefor. In course of time, other families of Gowda Saraswath Brahmins would appear to have settled in the three villages constituting Moolky, and the temple came to be managed by members of this community residing in those villages.
3. In 1915, a suit, OS No. 26 of 1915, was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing a scheme for this temple. Exhibit A-6 is the decree passed in that suit. It begins by declaring that “Shri Venkataramana temple of Moolky situated in the village of Mannampadi, Nadisal Mangane, Mangalore taluk is an ancient institution belonging to the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin community i.e. the community to which the parties to the suit belong residing in the Moolky Petah i.e. the villages of Bappanad, Karnad and Mannampadi according to the existing survey demarcation”. Clause 2 of the decree vests the general control and management of the affairs of the temple, both secular and religious, in the members of that community. Clause 3 provides for the actual management being carried on by a Board of Trustees to be elected by the members of the community aforesaid from among themselves. Then follow elaborate provisions relating to preparation of register of electors, convening of meetings of the general body and holding of elections of trustees. This decree was passed on 9-3-1921, and it is common ground that the temple has ever since been managed in accordance with the provisions of the scheme contained therein.
4. This was the position when the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act (Madras 5 of 1947), hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, was passed by the Legislature of the Province of
Madras. It will be useful at this stage to set out the relevant provisions of the Act, as it is the validity of Section 3 thereof that is the main point for determination in this appeal. The preamble to the Act recites that the policy of the Provincial Government was “to remove the disabilities imposed by custom or usage on certain classes of Hindus against entry into Hindu temples in the Province which are open to the general Hindu public”. Section 2(2) defines “temple” as “a place by whatever name known, which is dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu community in general as a place of public religious worship”. Section 3(1) enacts that, “Notwithstanding any law, custom or usage to the contrary, persons belonging to the excluded classes shall be entitled to enter any Hindu temple and offer worship therein in the same manner and to the same extent as Hindus in general; and no member of any excluded class shall, by reason only of such entry or worship, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, be deemed to have committed any actionable wrong or offence or be sued or prosecuted therefor.”
Section 6 of the Act provides that,
“If any question arises as to whether a place is or is not a temple as defined in this Act, the question should be referred to the Provincial Government and their decision shall be final, subject however to any decree passed by a competent civil court in a suit filed before it within six months from the date of the decision of the Provincial Government.”
It is the contention of the appellants – and that, in our opinion, is well-founded – that the true intent of this enactment as manifest in the above provisions was to remove the disability imposed on Harijans from entering into temples, which were dedicated to the Hindu public generally.
5. Apprehending that action might be taken to put the provisions of this Act in operation with reference to the suit temple, the trustees thereof sent a memorial to the Government of Madras claiming that it was a private temple belonging exclusively to the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins, and that it therefore did not fall within the purview of the Act. On this, the Government passed an order on 25-6-1948, Ex. B-13, that the temple was one which was open to all Hindus generally, and that the Act would be applicable to it. Thereupon, the trustees filed the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, for a declaration that the Sri Venkataramana temple at Moolky was not a temple as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act. It was alleged in the plaint that the temple was founded for the benefit of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins in Moolky Petah, that it had been at all times under their management, that they were the followers of the Kashi Mutt, and that it was the head of the Mutt that performed various religious ceremonies in the temple, and that the other communities had no rights to worship therein. The plaint was filed on 8-2-1949. On 25-7-1949, the Province of Madras filed a written statement contesting the claim. Between these two dates, the Madras Legislature had enacted the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation (Amendment) Act (Madras 13 of 1949), amending the definition of “temple” in Section 2(2) of Act 5 of 1947, and making consequential amendments in the preamble and in the other provisions of the Act. According to the amended definition, a temple is “a place which is dedicated to or for the benefit of the Hindu community or any section thereof as a place of public religious worship”. This Amendment Act came into force on 28-6- 1949. In the written statement filed on 25-7-1949, the Government denied that the temple was founded exclusively for the benefit of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins, and contended that the Hindu public generally had a right to worship therein, and that, therefore, it fell within the definition of temple as originally enacted. It further pleaded that, at any rate, it was a temple within the definition as amended by Act 13 of 1949, even if it was dedicated for the benefit of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins, inasmuch as they were a section of Hindu community, and that, in consequence, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
6. On 26-1-1950, the Constitution came into force, and thereafter, on 11-2-1950, the plaintiffs raised the further contention by way of amendment of the plaint that, in any event, as the temple was a denominational one, they were entitled to the protection of Article 26, that it was a matter of religion as to who were entitled to take part in worship in a temple, and that Section 3 of the Act, insofar as it provided for the institution being thrown open to communities other than Gowda Saraswath Brahmins, was repugment to Article 26(b) of the Constitution and was, in consequence, void.
7. On these pleadings, the parties went to trial. The Subordinate Judge of South Kanara, who tried the suit, held that though the temple had been originally founded for the benefit of certain immigrant families of Gowda Saraswath Brahmins, in course of time it came to be resorted to by all classes of Hindus for worship, and that accordingly it must be held to be a temple even according to the definition of “temple” in Section 2(2) of the Act, as it originally stood. Dealing with the contention that the plaintiffs had the right under Article 26(b) to exclude all persons other than Gowda Saraswath Brahmins from worshipping in the temple, he held that “matters of religion” in that Article had reference to religious beliefs and doctrines, and did not include rituals and ceremonies, and that, in any event, Articles 17 and 25(2) which had been enacted on grounds of high policy must prevail. He accordingly dismissed the suit with costs. Against this decision, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the High Court of Madras, AS No. 145 of 1952.
8. It is now necessary to refer to another litigation inter partes, the result of which has a material bearing on the issues which arise for determination before us. In 1951, the Madras Legislature enacted the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, (Madras 19 of 1951) vesting in the State the power of superintendence and control of temples and Mutts. The Act created a hierarchy of officials to be appointed by the State, and conferred on them enormous powers of control and even management of institutions. Consequent on this legislation, a number of writ applications were filed in the High Court of Madras challenging the validity of the provisions therein as repugnant to Articles 19, 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and one of them was Writ Petition No. 668 of 1951 by the trustees of Sri Venkataramana Temple at Moolky. They claimed that the institution being a denominational one, it had a right under Article 26(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, without interference from any outside authority, and that the provisions of the Act were bad as violative of that right. By its judgment dated 13-12-1951, the High Court held that the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin community was a section of the Hindu public, that the Venkataramana Temple at Moolky was a denominational temple founded for its benefit, and that many of the provisions of the Act infringed the right granted by Article 26(b) and were void. Vide Devaraja Shenoy v. State of
Madras [(1952) 2 MLJ 481]. Against this judgment, the State of Madras preferred an appeal to this Court, but ultimately, it was withdrawn and dismissed on 30-9-1954.
9. To resume the history of the present litigation: Subsequent to the dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1953 by this Court, the appeal of the plaintiffs, AS No. 145 of 1952, was taken up for hearing, and on the application of the appellants, the proceedings in the writ petition were admitted as additional evidence. On a review of the entire materials on record, including those relating to the proceedings in Writ Petition No. 668 of 1951, the learned Judges held it established that the Sri Venkataramana Temple was founded for the benefit of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin community, and that it was therefore a denominational one. Then, dealing with the contention that Section 3 of the Act was in contravention of Article 26(b), they held that as a denominational institution would also be a public institution, Article 25(2)(b) applied, and that, thereunder, all classes of Hindus were entitled to enter into the temple for worship. But they also held that the evidence established that there were certain religious ceremonies and occasions during which the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins alone were entitled to participate, and that that right was protected by Article 26(b). They accordingly, reserved the rights of the appellants to exclude all members of the public during those ceremonies and on those occasions, and these were specified in the decree. Subject to this modification, they dismissed the appeal. Against this judgment, the plaintiffs have preferred Civil Appeal No. 403 of 1956 on a certificate granted by the High Court.
11. On the arguments addressed before us, the following questions fall to be decided:
(1) Is the Sri Venkataramana Temple at Moolky, a temple as defined in Section 2(2) of Madras Act 5 of 1947?
(2) If it is, is it a denominational temple?
(3) If it is a denominational temple, are the plaintiffs entitled to exclude all Hindus other than Gowda Saraswath Brahmins from entering into it for worship, on the ground that it is a matter of religion within the protection of Article 26(b) of the Constitution?
(4) If so, is Section 3 of the Act valid on the ground that it is a law protected by Article 25(2)(b), and that such a law prevails against the right conferred by Article 26(b); and
(5) If Section 3 of the Act is valid, are the modifications in favour of the appellants made by the High Court legal and proper?
12. On the first question, the contention of Mr M.K. Nambiar for the appellants is that the temple in question is a private one, and therefore falls outside the purview of the Act. This plea, however, was not taken anywhere in the pleadings. The plaint merely alleges that the temple was founded for the benefit of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins residing in Moolky Petah. There is no averment that it is a private temple. It is true that at the time when the suit was instituted the definition of “temple” as it then stood, took in only institutions which were dedicated to or for the benefit of the Hindu public in general, and it was therefore sufficient for the plaintiffs to aver that the suit temple was not one of that character, and that it would have made no difference in the legal position whether the temple was a private one, or whether it was intended for the benefit of a section of the public. But then, the legislature amended the definition of “temple” by Act 13 of 1949, and brought within it even institutions dedicated to or for the benefit of a section of the public; and that would have comprehended a temple founded for the benefit of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins but not a private temple. In the written statement which was filed by the Government, the amended definition of “temple” was in terms relied on in answer to the claim of the plaintiffs. In that situation, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to have raised the plea that the temple was a private one, if they intended to rely on it. Far from putting forward such a plea, they accepted the stand taken by the Government in their written statement, and simply contended that as the temple was a denominational one, they were entitled to the protection of Article 26(b). Indeed, the Subordinate Judge states in para 19 of the judgment that it was admitted by the plaintiffs that the temple came within the purview of the definition as amended by Act 13 of 1949.
14. (2) The next question is whether the suit temple is a denominational institution. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that at the inception the temple was founded for the benefit of Gowda Saraswath Brahmins; but the Subordinate Judge held that as in course of time public endowments came to be made to the temple and all classes of Hindus were taking part freely in worship therein, it might be presumed that they did so as a matter of right, and that, therefore, the temple must be held to have become dedicated to the Hindu public generally. The learned Judges of the High Court, however, came to a different conclusion. They followed the decision in Devaraja Shenoy v. State of Madras and held that the temple was a denominational one. The learned Solicitor-General attacks the correctness of this finding on two grounds. He firstly contends that even though the temple might have been dedicated to the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins, that would make it only a communal and not a denominational institution, unless it was established that there were religious tenets and practices special to the community, and that that had not been done. Now, the facts found are that the members of this community migrated from Gowda Desa first to the Goa region and then to the south, that they carried with them their idols, and that when they were first settled in Moolky, a temple was founded and these idols were installed therein. We are therefore concerned with the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins not as a section of a community but as a sect associated with the foundation and maintenance of the Sri Venkataramana Temple, in other words, not as a mere denomination, but as a religious denomination. From the evidence of PW 1, it appears that the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins have three Gurus, that those in Moolky Petah are followers of the head of the Kashi Mutt, and that it is he that performs some of the important ceremonies in the temple. Exhibit A is a document of the year 1826-27. That shows that the head of the Kashi Mutt settled the disputes among the Archakas, and that they agreed to do the puja under his orders. The uncontradicted evidence of PW 1 also shows that during certain religious ceremonies, persons other than Gowda Saraswath Brahmins have been wholly excluded. This evidence leads irresistibly to the conclusion that the temple is a denominational one, as contended for by the appellants.
On the findings of the Court below that the foundation was originally for the benefit of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin community, the fact that other classes of Hindus were admitted freely into the temple would not have the effect of enlarging the scope of the dedication into one for the public generally. On a consideration of the evidence, we see no grounds for differing from the finding given by the learned Judges in the court below that the suit temple is a denominational temple founded for the benefit of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins. [The first two questions were answered in the affirmative].
16. (3) On the finding that the Sri Venkataramana Temple at Moolky is a denominational institution founded for the benefit of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins, the question arises whether the appellants are entitled to exclude other communities from entering into it for worship on the ground that it is a matter of religion within the protection of Article 26(b). It is argued by the learned Solicitor-General that exclusion of persons from entering into a temple cannot ipso facto be regarded as a matter of religion, that whether it is so must depend on the tenets of the particular religion which the institution in question represents, and that there was no such proof in the present case. Now, the precise connotation of the expression “matters of religion” came up for consideration by this Court in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [(1954) SCR 1005] and it was held therein that it embraced not merely matters of doctrine and belief pertaining to the religion but also the practice of it, or to put it in terms of Hindu theology, not merely its Gnana but also its Bhakti and Karma Kandas. The following observations of Mukherjea, J., (as he then was) are particularly apposite to the present discussion:
“In the first place, what constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself. If the tenets of any religious sect of the Hindus prescribe that offerings of food should be given to the idol at particular hours of the day, that periodical ceremonies should be performed in a certain way at certain periods of the year or that there should be daily recital of sacred texts or oblations to the sacred fire, all these would be regarded as parts of religion and the mere fact that they involve expenditure of money or employment of priests and servants or the use of marketable commodities would not make them secular activities partaking of a commercial or economic character; all of them are religious practices and should be regarded as matters of religion within the meaning of Article 26(b).”
17. It being thus settled that matters of religion in Article 26(b) include even practices which are regarded by the community as part of its religion, we have now to consider whether exclusion of a person from entering into a temple for worship is a matter of religion according to Hindu Ceremonial Law.
18. [After careful examination of Hindu ceremonial law pertaining to temples, the Court proceeded]. Thus, under the ceremonial law pertaining to temples, who are entitled to enter into them for worship and where they are entitled to stand and worship and how the worship is to be conducted are all matters of religion. The conclusion is also implicit in Article 25 which after declaring that all persons are entitled freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, enacts that this should not affect the operation of any law throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. We have dealt with this question at some length in view of the argument of the learned Solicitor-General that exclusion of persons from temple has not been shown to be a matter of religion with reference to the tenets of Hinduism. We must, accordingly hold that if the rights of the appellants have to be determined solely with reference to Article 26(b), then Section 3 of Act 5 of 1947, should be held to be bad as infringing it.
19. (4) That brings us on to the main question for determination in this appeal, whether the right guaranteed under Article 26(b) is subject to a law protected by Article 25(2)(b) throwing the suit temple open to all classes and sections of Hindus. We must now examine closely the terms of the two Articles. Article 25, omitting what is not material, is as follows:
“(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law –
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.”
Article 26 runs as follows:
“Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right –
(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
(d) to administer such property in accordance with law.”
20. We have held that matters of religion in Article 26(b) include the right to exclude persons who are not entitled to participate in the worship according to the tenets of the institution. Under this Article, therefore, the appellants would be entitled to exclude all persons other than Gowda Saraswath Brahmins from entering into the temple for worship. Article 25(2)(b) enacts that a law throwing open public temples to all classes of Hindus is valid. The word “public” includes, in its ordinary acceptation, any section of the public, and the suit temple would be a public institution within Article 25(2)(b), and Section 3 of the Act would therefore be within its protection. Thus, the two Articles appear to be apparently in conflict. Mr M.K. Nambiar contends that this conflict could be avoided if the expression “religious institutions of a public character” is understood as meaning institutions dedicated to the Hindu community in general, though some sections thereof might be excluded by custom from entering into them, and that, in that view, denominational institutions founded for the benefit of a section of Hindus would fall outside the purview of Article 25(2)(b) as not being dedicated for the Hindu community in general. He sought support for this contention in the law relating to the entry of excluded classes into Hindu temples and in the history of legislation with reference thereto, in Madras.
25. The answer to this contention is that it is impossible to read any such limitation into the language of Article 25(2)(b). It applies in terms to all religious institutions of a public character without qualification or reserve. As already stated, public institutions would mean not merely temples dedicated to the public as a whole but also those founded for the benefit of sections thereof, and denominational temples would be comprised therein. The language of the Article being plain and unambiguous, it is not open to us to read into it limitations which are not there, based on a priori reasoning as to the probable intention of the legislature. Such intention can be gathered only from the words actually used in the statute; and in a court of law, what is unexpressed has the same value as what is unintended. We must therefore hold that denominational institutions are within Article 25(2)(b).
29. The result then is that there are two provisions of equal authority, neither of them being subject to the other. The question is how the apparent conflict between them is to be resolved. The rule of construction is well settled that when there are in an enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect could be given to both. This is what is known as the rule of harmonious construction. Applying this rule, if the contention of the appellants is to be accepted, then Article 25(2)(b) will become wholly nugatory in its application to denominational temples, though, as stated above, the language of that Article includes them. On the other hand, if the contention of the respondents is accepted, then full effect can be given to Article 26(b) in all matters of religion, subject only to this that as regards one aspect of them, entry into a temple for worship, the rights declared under Article 25(2)(b) will prevail. While, in the former case, Article 25(2)(b) will be put wholly out of operation, in the latter, effect can be given to both that provision and Article 26(b). We must accordingly hold that Article 26(b) must be read subject to Article 25(2)(b).
30. (5) It remains to deal with the question whether the modifications made in the decree of the High Court in favour of the appellants are valid. Those modifications refer to various ceremonies relating to the worship of the deity at specified times each day and on specified occasions. The evidence of PW 1 establishes that on those occasions, all persons other than Gowda Saraswath Brahmins were excluded from participation thereof. That evidence remains uncontradicted, and has been accepted by the learned Judges, and the correctness of their finding on this point has not been challenged before us. It is not in dispute that the modifications aforesaid relate, according to the view taken by this Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt to matters of religion, being intimately connected with the worship of the deity. On the finding that the suit temple is a denominational one, the modifications made in the High Court decree would be within the protection of Article 26(b).
31. The learned Solicitor-General for the respondents assails this portion of the decree on two grounds. He firstly contends that the right to enter into a temple which is protected by Article 25(2)(b) is a right to enter into it for purposes of worship, that that right should be liberally construed, and that the modifications in question constitute a serious invasion of that right, and should be set aside as unconstitutional. We agree that the right protected by Article 25(2)(b) is a right to enter into a temple for purposes of worship, and that further it should be construed liberally in favour of the public. But it does not follow from this that that right is absolute and unlimited in character. No member of the Hindu public could, for example, claim as part of the rights protected by Article 25(2)(b) that a temple must be kept open for worship at all hours of the day and night, or that he should personally perform those services, which the Archakas alone could perform. It is again a well-known practice of religious institutions of all denominations to limit some of its services to persons who have been specially initiated, though at other times, the public in general are free to participate in the worship. Thus, the right recognised by Article 25(2)(b) must necessarily be subject to some limitations or regulations, and one such limitation or regulation must arise in the process of harmonising the right conferred by Article 25(2)(b) with that protected by Article 26(b).
35. In the result, both the appeal and the application for special leave to appeal must be dismissed.
