Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore

HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

INTRODUCTION

The basis of the principle of harmonious construction is that the legislature never intends to contradict itself by providing two repugnant provisions in the same statute. The Act has to be read as a whole and its provisions have to be harmonised giving effect to all of them. The rule of harmonious construction says that when two or more provisions of the same statute are repugnant, the Court tries to construe these provisions in such a manner, as to give effect to both by harmonising them with each other. The court may do so either by holding two or more apparently conflicting provisions as dealing with separate situations or by holding that one provision merely provides for an exception of the general rule contained therein. Conflicting statutory provisions should be harmoniously construed for avoiding interpretation which may render any one of them ineffective or otiose or surplusage.

{1.10 Harmonious Construction, Avatar singh}

FACTS

An ancient temple dedicated to Sri Venkataramana existed in the South District of Kanara. The members/trustees of this temple were part of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins religious denomination. The temple was managed according to a scheme framed in 1921. Apprehending action under the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, the trustees filed a suit for a declaration that the temple was not a "temple" as defined by the Act and claimed it was a private temple belonging exclusively to the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins, who followed the Kashi Mutt. They alleged that other communities had no right to worship therein.

ISSUE

The Primary issue was whether the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion guaranteed under Article 26(b) of the Constitution is subject to, and can be controlled by, a law protected by Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, which deals with throwing open a Hindu public temple to all classes and Sections of Hindus.

RULES

• Article 25(2)(b) of the Indian Constitution states that: “Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law- 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(b) of the Indian Constitution states that: “Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any Section thereof shall have the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.”

• Section 2(2) of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act 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.” (Post-1949 amendment included "or for the benefit of a Section of the public").

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

1. Secondary Issues (Character of the Temple and Article 26(b) Scope):

• The court first determined that the temple was denominational in nature, founded for the benefit of the Gowda Saraswath Brahmins, whom the court regarded as a religious denomination.

• Relying on The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, the court held that “matters of religion” under Article 26(b) included not merely doctrine but also practices regarded by the community as part of its religion.

• The court held that the right under Article 26(b) included the right to exclude persons who are not entitled to participate in the worship according to the tenets of the institution. Thus, the temple's ability to exclude non-denominational Hindus was protected under Article 26(b).

2. Primary Issue (Harmonising Article 25(2)(b) and 26(b)):

• The two Articles, both constitutional provisions of equal authority, showed an apparent conflict: Article 25(2)(b) mandated throwing open public temples to all Hindus, while Article 26(b) protected a denomination's right to manage religious affairs, which included controlling entry.

• The court applied the Rule of Harmonious Construction stating that when two irreconcilable provisions exist, they should be interpreted so that, if possible, effect could be given to both.

• The court held that the right protected by Article 25(2)(b), though generally favouring the public, is not absolute and unlimited. It must be subject to the limitations or regulations arising from the need to harmonise it with the right protected by Article 26(b).

• The Harmonisation: The right of the general public to enter a denominational temple (under Article 25(2)(b)) must be limited to the parts of the temple and the ceremonies where the entry of the general public would not infringe upon the denomination's exclusive religious practices. The denomination retains the right to manage its essential religious affairs and ceremonies (under Article 26(b)), even within a public temple.

{Pg 67 The Interpretation of Statutes by Bhattacharyya}