Shirur Mutt Case — AIR 1954 SC 282

The Court drew a clear line between faith and management. Core religious beliefs and essential practices are protected. The State may regulate the secular administration of a math, but it cannot control religion itself. A tax-like contribution to support a religion violates Article 27. In this case, the Board’s move to impose a scheme was stopped.

• Did the Swami of Shirur Mutt have a property right under Article 19(1)(f) (as it then stood)?
• Does the word “person” in Article 25 include corporate bodies like a math?
• Is Shirur Mutt a “religious denomination” under Article 26?
• What are “matters of religion,” and can the Government interfere with the Swami’s religious functions?

Article 19(1)(f) (then in force): Property rights of individuals and institutions (subject to later constitutional changes).

Article 25: Freedom of conscience; right to profess, practice, and propagate religion—available to persons, including heads of institutions.

Article 26: Denominational rights to manage affairs in matters of religion, own/acquire property, and administer such property in accordance with law.

Article 27: No tax can be used to promote or maintain any particular religion.

• 1919: Petitioner installed as Mathadhipati while a minor; assumed charge around 1926; the math was in debt.
• 1946: Expenses during second Pariyayam and scarcity led to heavy borrowing; debts neared one lakh rupees.
• Disputes arose with an agent who allegedly ignored the Mahant’s authority and withheld accounts.
• 04 Oct 1950: Swami filed suit for return of books and injunction against the agent.
• Board started inquiries and then, suo motu, proposed a scheme under the statute, citing mismanagement (Nov–Dec 1950).
• Adjournments occurred due to the counsel’s illness; explanation reached the Board mid-January 1951.
• 24 Jan 1951: Board told the Swami it would settle a scheme for the math’s administration.

The Board’s move to frame a scheme was a perverse use of power on these facts. The Court prohibited further steps.

The Swami, as head of a religious institution, can freely practice and propagate religion under Article 25. A math and its followers can be a denominational body with rights under Article 26.

The compulsory contribution under the Act fell within the mischief of Article 27 (no tax for promoting a religion).

• “Matters of religion” include beliefs and essential practices. These are immune from State control.
• The State may regulate secular administration of religious property but cannot convert control into domination.
• A levy that funds religious purposes violates Article 27.

This ruling is a pillar for religious freedom law. It shaped the “essential practices” approach and set limits on State control over denominational institutions.

Mnemonic: “EPIC-R” — Essential practices safe; Property/administration regulable; Institutional denomination protected; Contribution (tax) barred; Religion ≠ State control.

1. Identify: Is it faith/practice or admin/money?
2. Apply: Protect faith; regulate only secular admin.
3. Check: Any levy funding religion? Article 27 stops it.

Math/Mut t

A Hindu monastic institution with religious and charitable functions.

Religious Denomination

A distinct religious body with common faith, organization, and name.

Essential Practices

Core beliefs/practices central to a religion; protected from State control.