{"id":256145,"date":"1982-11-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-11-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982"},"modified":"2015-03-16T17:01:02","modified_gmt":"2015-03-16T11:31:02","slug":"s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982","title":{"rendered":"S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR, 1\t\t 1983 SCR (1) 729<\/div>\n
Author: R Misra<\/div>\n
Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj), Bhagwati, P.N., Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J), Eradi, V. Balakrishna (J), Misra, R.B. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nS.P. MITTAL ETC. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/11\/1982\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\nBENCH:\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1983 AIR    1\t\t  1983 SCR  (1) 729\n 1983 SCC  (1)\t51\t  1982 SCALE  (2)1001\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1984 SC  51\t (8A)\n R\t    1987 SC 748\t (19)\n RF\t    1992 SC1277\t (22)\n\n\nACT:\n     Right to  freedom of  religion and\t to manage religious\naffairs-Constitution of\t India, 1950 Articles 25 and 26-Shri\nAurobindo's teachings  cannot be  said to  be of a religious\nnature-Aurobindo Society  and the  Auroville township do not\nfall within  the meaning  of religious denomination so as to\nbe violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.\n     Words & Phrases-'Religion' and 'Religious denomination'\nexplained.\n     Auroville (Emergency  Provisions) Act<\/a>, 1980 (Act LIX of\n1980) Preamble-Parliamentary  competency to  enact the\tAct-\nWhether inconsistent  and in conflict with the provisions of\nthe West  Bengal Societies  Registration Act, 1961 (Act XXVI\nof 1961) Sections 22<\/a> & 23<\/a> containing in built self-contained\nprovisions for dealing with the management of the registered\nsocieties-Constitution of  India 1950  Article 245<\/a>, Schedule\nVII, List I Entry 32-Functions of the Lists, Explained.\n     Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act<\/a> 1980 providing for\ntaking over  the management  only of  Auroville township and\nits activities\tfor a limited period is not violative either\nof Article  14<\/a>, Articles  25 and 26 or Articles 29 and 30 of\nthe Constitution.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Sri Aurobindo, one of the Indian sages and philosphers,\nafter a brilliant academic and administrative career engaged\nhimself\t  for\tsometime   in\tpolitical   activities\t and\nrevolutionary literary efforts, but later on gave them up to\nconcentrate himself  with the  life of medition and integral\nyoga at\t Pondicherry, in  Tamil Nadu.  Madam  M.  Alfassa  a\nFrench Lady,  who came\tto be  known as\t the Mother became a\ndisciple of Sri Aurobindo. Very soon more and more disciples\ncame to\t join him from various parts of India and abroad and\nthus the Aurobindo Ashram came into being. The disciples and\ndevoted followers  of Sri  Aurobindo and  the Mother, with a\nview to propagate and practise the ideals and beliefs of Sri\nAurobindo formed  a Society  called Sri Aurobindo Society in\nthe year  1960, which at all material times was and is still\na society  duly registered  under the provisions of the West\nBengal Societies Registration\n730\nAct,  1961.   This  Society   is  completely  distinct\tfrom\nAurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry. The Society was established\nand registered\tfor the\t purpose of  carrying out in and out\nside India  the several\t objects stated in the memorandum of\nthe Society.\n     The management  of the  Society vested in its Executive\nCommittee. Rules  and regulations  have been duly framed for\nthe management\tof the Society and also for safe custody and\nprotection of its assets, properties and funds.\n     Sri  Aurobindo  Society  preaches\tand  propagates\t the\nideals and  teachings of  Sri Aurobindo, inter alia, through\nits numerous  centres scattered\t throughout India  by way of\nweekly meetings of its members.\n     The Mother as the founder-president also conceived of a\nproject\t of   setting  up   a  cultural\t township  known  as\n'Auroville' where people of different countries are expected\nto engage  in cultural, educational and scientific and other\npursuits aiming\t at human  unity. The  Society\thas  been  a\nchannel of  funds for setting up the cultural township known\nas Auroville.\n     At the  initiative of  the\t Government  of\t India,\t the\nUnited\tNations\t  Educational,\t Scientific   and   Cultural\nOrganisation being of the opinion that the Auroville project\nwould  contribute   to\t international\t understanding\t and\npromotion of  peace sponsored  the project  by\tproposing  a\nresolution to this effect at its General Conference in 1966.\nThis resolution\t was unanimously adopted at this conference.\nBy a  further resolution  passed in  1968 the UNESCO invited\nits  member   States  and   international   non-governmental\norganisations to participate in the development of Auroville\nas an  international cultural township to bring together the\nvalues of different cultures and civilisations in harmonious\nenvironment  with   integrated\t living\t  standards,   which\ncorresponds to\tman's physical\tand spiritual needs. In 1970\nUNESCO had  directed its Director-General to take such steps\nas may\tbe feasible,  within  the  budgetary  provisions  to\npromote\t the   development  of\tAuroville  as  an  important\ninternational  cultural\t programme.  Sri  Aurobindo  Society\nreceived large\tfunds in  the shape of grants from different\norganisations in  India and  abroad for\t development of that\ntownship. The  assistance included  contributions  from\t the\nState Governments  of the  value of  Rs. 66.50 lakhs and the\nCentral Government of the value of Rs. 26.14 lakhs.\n     After the death of the Mother on 17th of November, 1973\na number  of problems of varying nature affecting the smooth\nrunning of  the project\t cropped up. The Government of India\non receiving  complaints about\tmismanagement of the project\nand misuse  of funds  by Sri  Aurobindo\t Society  set  up  a\ncommittee  under   the\tchairmanship   of  the\tGovernor  of\nPondicherry with  representatives of the Government of Tamil\nNadu and  of the  Ministry of  Home Affairs  in the  Central\nGovernment to  look into  the matter.  The Committee  made a\ndetailed scrutiny  of the  accounts of Sri Aurobindo Society\nrelating  to   Auroville  and  found  instances\t of  serious\nirregularities\tin  the\t management  of\t the  Society,\tmis-\nutilisation of\tits  funds  and\t their\tdiversion  to  other\npurposes. Further,  various other  serious difficulties\t had\narisen plaguing\t the Management\t of Auroville  and rendering\nthereby\t any   further\tgrowth\t of  the   township   almost\nimpossible.\n731\nIn the\tcircumstances the  taking over\tof the management of\nAuroville became imperative to ensure growth of the township\nin tune with its objectives.\n     Keeping in\t view the  international  character  of\t the\nproject and  considering  the  government's  involvement  in\nactively sponsoring  the project  through UNESCO, the growth\nand  management\t of  the  project  had\tbecome\tthe  primary\nresponsibility of the Government of India. The ideals of the\nproject formed\tIndia's highest aspirations, which could not\nbe allowed  to be  defeated  or\t frustrated.  Sri  Aurobindo\nsociety had lost complete control over the situation and the\nmembers of  the Auroville approached the Government of India\nto give\t protection against  oppression and victimisation at\nthe hands  of the said Society. There were internal quarrels\nbetween the various factions of Sri Aurobindo Society. There\nhave  also  been  instances  of\t law  and  order  situation.\nFinancial management  of the projects has not been sound and\nseveral instances  of mismanagement, diversion of funds have\nbeen revealed.\tA large\t sum  of  money\t was  given  by\t Sri\nAurobindo  Society  to\tAURO  construction-an  agency  whose\nstatus.\t is   not  at\tall  defined,  whose  functions\t and\ncapabilities for taking up large construction works also had\nnot been  made known.  The Government  in the  circumstances\ncould not  be a silent spectator to the mismanagement of the\nproject and  internecine quarrels amongst its members, which\nif not\tchecked could lead to the destruction of the project\nso nobly  conceived. The  Government, therefore,  decided to\nissue a Presidential Ordinance. After the filing of the writ\npetition  the\tordinance  has\tnow  been  replaced  by\t the\nAuroville (Emergency Provisions) Act<\/a>, 1980.\n     The  constitutional   validity  of\t the  Act  has\tbeen\nchallenged  on\t four  grounds:\t  (i)  Parliament   has\t  no\nlegislative competence\tto enact  the impugned statute; (ii)\nThe impugned Act infringes Articles 25, 26, 29 and 30 of the\nConstitution; (iii) The impugned Act is violative of Article\n14<\/a> of the Constitution; and (iv) The Act<\/a> was mala fide.\n     Dismissing the petitions, the Court\n^\n     HELD:\n     (Per Misra, J.)\n     1:1. The  Parliament had  the legislative competence to\nenact the  Auroville (Emergency\t Provisions) Act<\/a>,  1980 (Act\nLIX) of 1980. [770 D]\n     1:2. The  subject matter  of the  impugned Act  is\t not\ncovered by Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. Even\nif the\tsubject matter of the impugned Act is not covered by\nany specific  entry of List I or III of the Seventh Schedule\nof the\tConstitution it\t would in any case be covered by the\nresiduary entry 97 of List I. [770 C-D]\n     1:3. The  function of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule\nto the\tConstitution is\t not to\t confer powers.\t They merely\ndemarcate the  legislative fields.  The Entries in the three\nLists are  only legislative  heads or  fields of legislation\nand the\n732\npower to  legislate is\tgiven to  appropriate legislature by\nArticles 245 to 248 of the Constitution. [766 H, 767 A]\n     1:4. The  Auroville  Act<\/a>  even  incidentally  does\t not\ntrench upon  the field\tcovered by the West Bengal Societies\nRegistration Act,  1961 as  it\tis  in\tno  way\t related  to\nConstitution, regulation and winding up of the Society. [770\nB]\n     R.C. Cooper  v. Union  of India [1970] 3 SCR 530 @ 563,\napplied.\n     Attorney General  for Ontario  v. Attorney\t General for\nthe Dominion  [1896] AC 348 @ 366-67; Union of India v. H.S.\nDhillon<\/a> [1972]\t2 SCR  33 @ 45; Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic\nand Unani  Tibia College  v. The  State of  Delhi and Others<\/a>\n[1962] 1  Supp. SCR 156; Katra Education Society v. State of\nUttar Pradesh and Others<\/a> [1966] 3 SCR 328, referred to.\n     2:1. The  words \"religious\t denomination\" in Article 26<\/a>\nof the\tConstitution must  take their  colour from  the word\n'religion' and\tif this\t be so,\t the  expression  \"religious\ndenomination\" must also satisfy three conditions:\n     (i)  It must  be a\t collection of individuals who has a\n\t  system of beliefs or doctrine which they regard as\n\t  conducive to\ttheir spiritual well-being, that is,\n\t  a common faith;\n     (ii) Common organisation: and\n     (iii)Designation by a distinctive name. [774 B-D]\n     2:2. The term 'religion' has been judicially considered\nin the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v.\nSri Lakshmindra\t Thirtha Swamiyar  of Sri Shriur Mutt<\/a> [1954]\nSCR 1005  and the  following propositions  of law  laid down\ntherein have  been  consistently  followed  in\tlater  cases\nincluding The  Durgah Committee,  Ajmer and  Another v. Syed\nHussain Ali & Others<\/a> [1962] 1 SCR 383 @ 410-11 :\n     (1)  Religion means  \"a system  of beliefs or doctrines\n\t  which are  regarded  by  those  who  profess\tthat\n\t  religion as  conducive  to  their  spiritual\twell\n\t  being\";\n     (2)  A religion  is not  merely an opinion, doctrine or\n\t  belief. It  has its  outward expression in acts as\n\t  well;\n     (3)  Religion need not be theistic;\n     (4)  \"Religious denomination\" means a religious sect or\n\t  body having  a common\t faith and  organisation and\n\t  designated by a distinctive name;\n     (5)  A   law   which   takes   away   the\t rights\t  of\n\t  administration  from\tthe  hands  of\ta  religious\n\t  denomination altogether and vests in another\n733\n\t  authority would  amount to  violation of the right\n\t  guaranteed under  clause (d)\tof Article 26.\"<\/a> [773\n\t  E-H, 774A]\n     Per Majority  [Misra, J for himself, Y. V. Chandrachud,\nC.J., P.  N. Bhagwati  and V.  Balakrishna  Eradi,  JJ.\t and\nChinnappa Reddy, J. dissenting.]\n     2:3. On  the basis\t of the\t materials the Memorandum of\nAssociation of the Society, the several applications made by\nthe Society  claiming exemption under s. 35<\/a> and s. 80<\/a> of the\nIncome-tax Act,\t the repeated  uttering of Sri Aurobindo and\nthe Mother that the society and Auroville were not religious\ninstitutions and  host of  other documents  there is no room\nfor doubt  that neither the Society nor Auroville constitute\na religious  denomination and the teachings of Sri Aurobindo\nonly represented  his philosophy and not a religion. [793 D-\nE]\n     Numerous  Uttering\t by  Sri  Aurobindo  or\t the  Mother\nunmistakably show that the Ashram or Society or Auroville is\nnot a  religious institution.  There can  be no better proof\nthan what Sri Aurobindo and the Mother themselves thought of\ntheir teachings\t and their  institutions to find out whether\nthe  teachings\tof  Sri\t Aurobindo  and\t his  Integral\tYoga\nconstitute a  religion or  a philosophy.  The Uttering\tmade\nfrom time  to time  by Sri  Aurobindo and  the Mother hardly\nleave any  doubt about the nature of the Institution. It was\non the\tbasis that  it was not a religious institution, that\nthe Society collected funds from the Central Government, the\nGovernments of\tStates, other non-Governmental agencies. and\nfrom abroad. [792 B-D, 793 A]\n     Even assuming  but not  holding that the Society or the\nAuroville  were\t  a  religious\tdenomination,  the  impugned\nenactment  is\tnot  hit  by  Articles\t25  and\t 26  of\t the\nConstitution. The  impugned enactment  does not\t curtail the\nfreedom of  conscience and  the\t right\tfreely\tto  profess,\npractise and  propagate religion.  Therefore,  there  is  no\nquestion of the enactment being hit by Article 25.<\/a> [793 E-F]\n     2:4. The  impugned enactment  does not stand in the way\nof the Society establishing and maintaining institutions for\nreligious and charitable purposes, It also does not stand in\nthe way\t of the\t Society to manage its affairs in matters of\nreligion. [794 A-B]\n     2:5. Even\tassuming that the society or Auroville was a\nreligious denomination,\t clause (b) of Art. 26<\/a> guarantees to\na religious  denomination a  right to manage its own affairs\nin matters  of religion. Besides the right to manage its own\naffairs in  matters of\treligion, which\t is given  by clause\n(b), the  next\ttwo  clauses  of  Art.\t26<\/a>  guarantee  to  a\nreligious denomination the right to acquire and own property\nand to\tadminister such property in accordance with law. The\nadministration of  its property\t by a religious denomination\nhas thus  been placed  on a different footing from the right\nto manage  its own  affairs in\tthe matters of religion. The\nlatter is  a fundamental right which no legislature can take\naway, whereas  the former can be regulated by laws which the\nlegislature can take away,\n734\nwhereas the  former can\t be  regulated\tby  laws  which\t the\nlegislature can\t validity impose.  It is  clear,  therefore,\nthat question  merely  relating\t to  a\treligions  group  or\ninstitution are\t not matters  of religion to which clause of\narticle applies.[800 H, 801 A-B]\n     2:6. The  impugned Act  had not taken away the right of\nmanagement  in\t matters  of   religion\t  or   a   religious\ndenomination, if  the Society  or Auroville  is a  religious\ndenomination at\t all, rather  it has taken away the right of\nmanagement of  the property  of Auroville. Thus the impugned\nAct neither  violates Article  25<\/a>, nor\tArticle\t 26<\/a>  of\t the\nConstitution. [801 C-D]\n     The Commissioner of H. R. & C. E. Madras v. Lakshmindra\nTirtha Swamiyar\t of Sri\t Sirur Mutt  [1954] S.C.R. 1005; The\nDurgah Committee  Ajmer and  Another  v.  Syed\tHussain\t Ali<\/a>\n[1962] 1  S.C.R, 383;  Tilkyat Shri  Govindlalji Maharaj  v.\nState of  Rajasthan &  others<\/a> [1964]  1 S.C.R.\t561;  Sastri\nYagnapurushadri & Others v. Muldas Bhudardas Vysya & Another<\/a>\n[1966]\t3  S.C.R.  242;\t Divyadassan  Rajendra\tRamdassji  &\nAnother v.  State of  Andhra Pradesh<\/a>  [1970] 1\tS.C.R.\t103;\nNalaw Ramalingayya  v. The  Commissioner of  Charitable\t and\nHindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Hyderabad A.I,R.\n1971 (AP)  320; T.  Krishnan v. G.D.M. Committee A.I.R, 1978\nKerala 68; applied.\n     3.\t  On an\t analysis of  Articles 29  and\t30  and\t the\ndecided cases  it is evident that the Auroville Act<\/a> does not\nseek to\t curtail the  right of\tany section  of\t citizen  to\nconserve its  own language,  script or\tculture conferred by\nArticle 29.<\/a>  The benefit of Art. 30(1)<\/a> can be claimed by the\ncommunity  only\t on  proving  that  it\tis  a  religious  or\nlinguistic minority and that the institution was established\nby it.\tSince Auroville\t or the\t Society is  not a religious\ndenomination, Articles\t29 and 30 would not be attached and,\ntherefore, the\timpugned Act  cannot be held to be violative\nof Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. [805 A-C]\n     In re:  The  Kerala  Education  Bill  [1959]  SCR\t995;\nReverend Sidhaibhai  Serbhai and  Others v.  State of Bombay\nand Another  [1963] 3  SCR 837\t@ 856;\tState of  Kerala  v.\nMother Provincial<\/a> [1971] 1 SCR 734; applied.\n     4.\t  The Auroville\t Take over  Act cannot be said to be\nviolative of  Article 14<\/a>  of the  Constitution, which action\nwas taken after full consideration of various aspects of the\nproblem, for the reasons namely, (i) it has not been pointed\nout  which   were  the\t other\tinstitutions  where  similar\nsituations were\t prevailing; and  (ii) there is a uniqueness\nwith this  institution inasmuch\t as the\t Government is\talso\ninvolved. Even a single institution may be taken as a class.\nThe situation  prevailing in the Auroville had converted the\ndream of the Mother into a nightmare. There had arisen acute\nlaw and\t order situation  in the  Auroville, numerous  cases\nwere pending against various foreigners, the funds meant for\nthe Auroville  had been\t diverted towards other purposes and\nthe atmosphere was getting out of hand. In the circumstances\nthe Government\tintervened and promulgated the Ordinance and\nlater on substituted it by the impugned enactment.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   [814 B-D]\n735\n     Budhan Choudhary  v. The  State of\t Bihar<\/a> [1955]  1 SCR\n1045: Shri  Ramakrishna Dalmia v. Sri Justice S.R. Tandolkar<\/a>\nand Others  [1959] SCR\t279; Raja Birakishore v. The Sate of\nOrissa<\/a> [1964] 7 SCR 32, followed.\n     Ram Prasad\t Narayan Sahi  and Another v. State of Bihar\nand Others<\/a> [1953] SCR 1129; distinguished.\n     5:1. Whether the  remedies provided under the Societies\nRegistration Act<\/a>  were sufficient  to meet the exigencies of\nthe situation  is not  for the Court to decide but it is for\nthe Government\tand  if\t the  Government  thought  that\t the\nconditions prevailing  in the  Auroville and the Society can\nbe ameliorated\tnot by\tresorting to  the provisions  of the\nSocieties Registration\tAct<\/a> but by a special enactment, that\nis an area of the Government and not of the Court. [818 E-F]\n     5:2. It is\t not correct to say that the facts stated in\nthe preamble  of the  Act were non est. Obviously there were\nserious\t irregularities\t  in  the  management  of  the\tsaid\nsociety. There\thas been  mis-utilisation of funds and their\ndiversion to  other purposes. This is evident from the audit\nreport. There was no material change in the situation on the\ndate of\t the impugned  ordinance  or  the  Act,\t rather\t the\nsituation had  grown  from  bad\t to  worse  and\t the  sordid\nsituation prevailing  in the Auroville so pointed out by the\nparties fully  justified the  promulgation of  the Ordinance\nand the\t passing of  the enactment.  Of course,\t each  party\ntried to  apportion the\t blame on  the other. Who so ever be\nresponsible, the  fact remains that the prevailing situation\nin the\tAuroville was  far  from  satisfactory.\t The  amount\ndonated\t for  the  construction\t of  the  cultural  township\nAuroville and  other institutions  was to  the tune of Rs. 3\ncrores. It  was the  responsibility of the Government to see\nthat the  amount was  not misutilised and the management was\nproperly carried  out. On  a perusal  of the  audit  report,\nwhich is  a voluminous\tone, all that can be said is that on\nthe facts found by the audit committee, the report is rather\na mild\tone. There seems to be serious irregularities in the\naccounts. A  substantial amount received by way of donations\nhad not been properly spent, there being mis-utilisation and\ndiversion of the funds. [819 B-F]\n     5:3. Even assuming that the facts brought to the notice\nof the\tlegislature were  wrong, it  will not be open to the\nCourt to  hold that Act to be bad on that account. The Court\nwould not  do so  even in  case of  a litigation  which\t has\nbecome final  on the  ground that  the facts or the evidence\nproduced in the case were not correct. The Parliament had to\napply its mind on the facts before it.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   [819 F-H]\n     We\t can  normally\tassume\tthat  the  Government  would\ncertainly appoint  a responsible  person as an administrator\nespecially  when  there\t is  a\theavy  stake  in  which\t the\nGovernment of  India is\t also involved\tin as much as at the\ninstance of the Government the UNESCO gave financial support\nto the institution.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   [820 F-G]\n     6. The  contention that the report of the committee was\ntainted as  Shri Kulkarni  the Chairman\t and Secretary\twere\nparties, is  without any  foundation. The  allegation of the\nimpugne Act being malafide is equally devoid of force.\n736\nKiriti Joshi  cannot be said to have his own axe to grind in\nthe matter  or was  instrumental  in  getting  the  impugned\nOrdinance and  the Act\tpassed. Allegations about mala fides\nare more easily made than made out. Merely because he made a\ncomplaint about\t the situation\tprevailing in the management\nof Auroville  and the  Society, it  cannot be  said that the\nimpugned enactment  was passed at his behest. [820 H, 821 B-\nC]\nPer Chinnappa Reddy, J. (Dissenting)\n     1:1. Shri Aurobindo  truly was  a religious teacher and\ntaught and  was understood  to\thave  taught  new  religious\ndoctrine  and\tpractice.   Therefore,\t Aurobindoism,\t can\ncertainly be  classified if  not as a new religion, as a new\nsect of\t Hinduism and  the followers of Sri Aurobindo can be\ntermed a  religious denomination.  Sri Aurobindo  of course,\ndisclaimed  that  he  was  founding  a\treligion.  No  great\nreligious teacher  ever claimed\t that he  was founding a new\nreligion or  a new school of religious thought. The question\nis not whether Sri Aurobindo refused to claim or denied that\nhe was\tfounding a new religion or a new school of religious\nthought but  whether his disciples and the community thought\nso. There  is no  doubt that they did not only his disciples\nand followers,\tbut religious leaders all the world over and\nof all\tfaiths. Therefore,  Aurobindo Society is a sect of a\nreligious determination within the meaning of the expression\nin Article 26<\/a> of the Constitution. [754 G-H, 755 A-B, F-G]\n     1:2. The word 'religion' does not occur in the Preamble\nto the constitution, but the Preamble does promise to secure\nto its\tcitizens \"Liberty  of  thought,\t expression,  belief\nfaith and  worship\". The freedom of conscience and the Right\nto profess,  propagate and  practise religion  guaranteed in\nArticle 25<\/a>  flow out  of the  idea so expressed in Preamble.\nFreedom of  conscience is not to be separated from the Right\nto  profess,   practise\t and  propagate\t religion.  They  go\ntogether and together they form part of the Right to Freedom\nof Religion.  It is  clear  from  Article  25<\/a>  that  secular\nactivity  may\tbe  associated\twith  Religion.\t though\t the\nguarantee of  the article  does not extend to such activity.\nArticle 26<\/a>  guarantees that  every religious denomination or\nany section  thereof shall have the right, subject to public\norder,\tmorality  and  health,\tto  establish  and  maintain\ninstitutions  for  religious  and  charitable  purposes,  to\nmanage its  own affairs\t in matters  of religion, to own and\nacquire movable\t and immovable\tproperty and  to  administer\nsuch property  in accordance with law. Several provisions of\nthe  constitution   where  the\t expression  'religion'\t and\n'religious denomination' are used are either those which are\nconcerned with equality and equal opportunity or those which\nare concerned  with freedom of religion. [742 D, F, G-H, 743\nA, C]\n     1:3. Reading  Art.\t  25<\/a>  in   the\tbackground   of\t the\nproclamation  regarding\t Liberty  in  the  Preamble  to\t the\nconstitution, it  is clear  that (i)  the constitution views\nreligion as comprising thought, expression, belief, faith or\nworship, as  involving the conscience and as something which\nmay be\tprofessed, practised and propagated and which is any\nman's attribute\t in the\t same manner as race, sex, language,\nresidence etc:\t(ii) economic, financial, political or other\nsecular activity  may be  associated with religious practice\nthough such  activity is  not covered  by the  guarantee  of\nfreedom of conscience and the right freely to\n737\nprofess, practise  and propagate,  religion; and so Religion\nis a  matter  of  thought,  expression,\t belief,  faith\t and\nworship, a  matter involving  the conscience  and  a  matter\nwhich may  be professed,  practised and propagated by anyone\nand which  may even  have some\tsecular activity  associated\nwith it. [744 F-H, 745 A]\n     1:4. Religion  undefined\tby  the\t  constitution,\t  is\nincapable of  precise  judicia\tdefinition  either.  In\t the\nbackground of  the provisions  of the  constitution and\t the\nlight shed  by judicial\t precedent, it\tcan at\tbest be said\nthat religion is a matter of faith. It is a matter of belief\nand doctrine.  It concerns the conscience i.e. the spirit of\nman. It\t must be  capable of  overt expressions\t in work and\ndeed, such  as worship or ritual. So religion is a matter of\nbelief and  doctrine concerning\t the human  spirit expressed\novertly in  the form  of ritual\t and worship. Some religions\nare  easily  identifiable  as  religious;  some\t are  easily\nidentifiable  as  not  religious.  There  are  many  in\t the\npenumbral region  which\t instinctively\tappear\tto  some  as\nreligion and to others as not religions. There is no formula\nof  general   application.  There  is  no  knife-edge  test.\nPrimarily, it  is a  question of  the consciousness  of\t the\ncommunity, how\tdoes the  fraternity or\t sodality (if  it is\npermissible to\tuse the\t word without  confining it to Roman\nCatholic Groups)  regard itself,  how do  others regard\t the\nfraternity or  sodality. A  host of  other circumstances may\nhave to\t be considered,\t such as, the origin and the history\nof the\tcommunity, the\trituals observed  by the  community,\nwhat the  founder, if  any, taught,  what  the\tfounder\t was\nunderstood by  his followers to have taught, etc. In origin,\nthe founder  may not  have intended to found any religion at\nall. He\t may have  merely protested against some rituals and\nobservances, he\t may have  disagreed with the interpretation\nof some\t earlier religious  tenets. What  he said,  what  he\npreached and  what he  taught, his protest, his distant, his\ndisagreement might  have developed  into a  religion in\t the\ncourse of time, even during his life-time. He may be against\nreligion itself,  yet, history\tand the\t perception  of\t the\ncommunity may  make a  religion out of what was not intended\nto be  a religion  and he  may be hailed as the founder of a\nnew religion. [750 B-G]\n     And, whatever  the ordinary  features  of\ta  religious\ndenomination may  be considered\t to be, all are not of equal\nimportance and surely the common faith of the religious body\nis more important than the other features. [751 C]\n     The Commissioner  of HR and C.E., Madras v. Lakshmindra\nTirtha Swamiyar\t of Sri\t Shirur\t Mutt  [1954]  S.C.R.  1005;\nRatilal Panachand  Gandhi v.  The  State  of  Bombay<\/a>  [1954]\nS.C.R. 1055;  Durgah Committee of Ajmer v. Sayed Hussain Ali\nJUDGMENT<\/a>:\n<\/pre>\n
Maharaj v. The State of Rajasthan and Others<\/a> [1964] 1 S.C.R.
\n561; Raja Virakishore v. State of Orissa<\/a> [1964] 7 S.C.R. 32;
\nSasti Yagnapurushadji and Others v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaisnya
\nand Another<\/a> [1966] 3 S.C.R. 242; referred to.\n<\/p>\n
     1:5. Judidial    definitions    are    not\t   statutory
\ndefinitions; they are mere explanations, every word of which
\nis not to be weighed in golden scales. Law has a tendency to
\nharden with  the passage of time and judicial pronouncements
\nare made  to assume the form of statutory pronouncements. So
\nsoon as\t a word\t or expression\toccurring in  the statute is
\njudicially defined,  the tendency is to try to interpret the
\nlanguage employed  by the judges in the judicial definition.
\nThat  is   wrong.  Always   words  and\t expressions  to  be
\ninterpreted are those employed in
\n738<\/span>
\nthe statute  and not  those used  by judges  for  felicitous
\nexplanation, Judicial  definition  is  explanatory  and\t not
\ndefinitive. [751 C-E]
\n     1:6. Religious denomination  has not  to owe allegiance
\nto any\tparent religion.  The entire following of a religion
\nmay be\tno more\t than the  religious denomination.  This may
\nparticularly be\t so in the case of small religious groups or
\n‘developing’ religions,\t that is, religions in the formative
\nstage.\tSo   Aurobindoism  can\tbe  termed  as\ta  religious
\ndenomination. The world and India treated and respected Shri
\nAurobindo as  a religious  teacher and\tthe founder of a new
\nreligion. [751 E-G]
\n     2:1. Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act<\/a>. 1980 did not
\ntake away or purport to take away the management of the Shri
\nAurobindo Society.  Parliament\tconcerned  itself  with\t the
\nmanagement of  Auroville only  and with no other activity of
\nthe  Shri  Aurobindo  Society,\tincluding  ‘its\t affairs  in
\nmatters\t of  religion’.\t In  fact,  section  4(2)<\/a>  makes  it
\nexplicit that, except for matters relating to the management
\nof Auroville,  the provisions  of the  West Bengal Societies
\nRegistration  Act,   1961,  under   which  the\tSociety\t was
\nregistered, shall  continue to\tapply to  the Society in the
\nsame manner as before. [755 G-H, 757 C-D]
\n     2:2. The  management  of  the  International,  cultural
\ntownship of  Auroville cannot  be said\tto be  a  matter  of
\nreligion. Auroville  is a  township and\t not a\tplace of the
\nworship. It is a township dedicated, not to the practice and
\nthe propagation\t of any\t religious doctrine  but to  promote
\ninternational  understanding  and  world  peace,  surely,  a
\nsecular and  not a  religious activity. The highest that can
\nbe said in favour of Auroville being a religious institution
\nor its\tmanagement being  a religious matter, is that it was
\nconceived by  the Mother  and shaped  and sculpted  by\tShri
\nAurobindo’s disciples and followers in the pursuit of one of
\nthe ideas  and ideals  of Shri\tAurobindo, a great religious
\nteacher. On  the other\thand, the ideal itself, that is, the
\npromotion of  international understanding and world peace is
\nby no  means a\treligious ideal\t and it\t was because  of the
\nnature of  the ideal  that the\tGovernment of  India and the
\nUNESCO adopted the project. Shri Aurobindo himself was not a
\nmere religious teacher. He was a visionary, a humanist and a
\nnationalist who\t had  blossomed\t into  an  internationalist.
\nTherefore, Auroville,  though the  child of  the Mother\t and
\nthough nurtured\t by the\t devotees of  Shri Aurobindo, has an
\nindividuality,\tdistinctly   secular  of   its\town.  Hence,
\nAuroville (Emergency  Provisions) Act<\/a> which provides for the
\ntaking over the management of Auroville for a limited period
\ndoes not  offend the rights guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26
\nof the Constitution. [757 E-H, 758 C]
\n     2:3. The rights guaranteed by Articles 29 and 30 cannot
\nbe said\t to have  been infringed  by the Auroville Emergency
\nprovisions Act.\t No section of citizens having a culture and
\nno religious minority has been denied the right to establish
\nand administer\tan educational\tinstitution of\tits  choice.
\n[758 D-E]
\n739<\/span><\/p>\n
&
\n     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 5879 of 1980.
\n     (Under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution of India)
\n\t\t\t    AND
\n\t      Writ Petition No. 5877 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     (Under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution of India)
\n\t\t\t    AND
\n\t      Transfered Case No. 29 of 1981.\n<\/p>\n
     (Calcutta High Court Writ Petition No. 11508 of 1981)
\n\t\t\t    With
\n\t       Civil Appeal No. 2819 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     (Appeal by\t special leave\tfrom the  judgment and order
\ndated 21st  November, 1980 of the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt of Calcutta in F.M.A.T. No. 3408 of 1980)
\n     Soli J.  Sorabji, K.K.  Venugopal,\t S.  Rangarajan,  S.
\nBalakrishnan,  M.K.D.  Namboodiry,  P.\tRadhakrishnan,\tN.A.
\nSubrahmaniam,  C.S.  Vaidyanathan,  M.N.  Krishna  Mani\t and
\nVinnet Kumar for the Petitioners and Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     L.N. Sinha,  Attorney General,  K. Parasaran, Solicitor
\nGeneral, M.K.  Banerji, Additional Solicitor General, Govind
\nSwaminadhan, for  R. 3, N. Nettar and Miss A. Subhashini for
\nRespondents Nos. 1 to 4.\n<\/p>\n
     T.S.  Krishnamoorthy  Iyer\t and  Raju  Ramchandran\t for
\nRespondent No. 5.\n<\/p>\n
     F.S. Nariman,  Anil B. Divan, P.H. Parekh, Mrs. Vineeta
\nSengupta, Gautam  Philip and  Sanjeev Agarwal for Respondent
\nNos. 6 to 240 in WPs. & CA.\n<\/p>\n
     P.P.  Rao,\t  P.C.\tKapur\tand  R.\t  Venkataramani\t for
\ninterveners 1-88.<\/p>\n
\n740<\/span>\nFOR APPLICANT\/INTERVENERS\nA.B. Patel:\t\t -    R.B. Datar\nIndra Sen:\t\t -    N.M. Kshatriya,\nR.K. Habbu:\t\t -    B.R. Aggarwala,\nCatholic Bishop Con-\t -    P.A. Francis, J.B. Dadachanji\nference of India:\t      and D.N. Mishra\n     The following Judgments were delivered\n<\/pre>\n
     CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. I  have the good fortune of having
\nbefore me  the scholarly  judgment of my brother Misra J., I
\nagree with my brother Misra, J\tthat the Writ Petitions must
\nfail. With  much that he has said, also, I agree. But with a
\nlittle, to  my own  lasting regret,  I do  not agree. It is,
\ntherefore, proper  for\tme  to\texplain\t the  points  of  my
\ndisagreement.\n<\/p>\n
     Quite  a  considerable  part  of  the  hearing  of\t the
\npetitions was  devoted to  a debate on the question, what is
\nReligion ? Religion: Everyone has a religion, or at least, a
\nview or\t a window  on religion,\t be he\ta  bigot  or  simple
\nbeliever, philosopher  or pedestrian,  atheist or  agnostic.
\nReligion, like\t‘democracy’ and\t ‘equality’  is\t an  elusive
\nexpression, which everyone understands according to his pre-
\nconceptions. What  is religion\tto some\t is  pure  dogma  to
\nothers and  what is  religion to others is pure superstition
\nto some\t others.  Karl\tMarx  in  his  contribution  to\t the
\nCritique of  Hegel’s Philosophy of Law described religion as
\nthe ‘Opium  of\tthe  people’.  He  said\t further  “Basically
\nreligion  is  a\t very  convenient  sanctuary  for  bourgeois
\nthought to  flee to in times of stress. Bertrand Russell, in
\nhis essay  ‘Why I  am not  Christian’,\tsaid,  “Religion  is
\nbased, I  think, primarily  and mainly\tupon  fear.”  It  is
\npartly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said,
\nthe wish  to feel that you have a kind of elder brother, who
\nwill stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is
\nthe basis of the whole thing-fear of the mysterious, fear of
\ndefeat, fear  of death.\t Fear is the parent of cruelty, and,
\ntherefore, it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone
\nhand in\t hand. As a worshipper at the alter of peace, I find
\nit  difficult\tto  reconcile\tmyself\tto  religion,  which
\nthroughout the\tages, has  justified war calling it a Dharma
\nUddha, a Jehad or a
\n741<\/span>
\nCrusade. I  believe that  by getting mixed up with religion,
\nethics has  lost ‘much of its point, much of its purpose and
\na major portion of its spontaneity’. I apprehend I share the
\nviews of those who have neither faith nor belief in religion
\nand who\t consider  religion  as\t entirely  unscientific\t and
\nirrational. Chanting  of prayer\t appears to  me to  be\tmere
\njingoism and  observance of  ritual, plain superstition. But
\nmy views about religion. my prejudices and my predilections,
\nif they\t be such,  are entirely irrelevant. So are the views
\nof the\tcredulous, the fanatic, the bigot and the zealot. So
\nalso the views of the faithful, the devout, the Acharya, the
\nMoulvi, the Padre and the Bhikshu each of whom may claim his
\nas the\tonly true  or revealed\treligion.  For\tour  present
\npurpose, we  are concerned  with  what\tthe  people  of\t the
\nSocialist, Secular,  Democratic Republic  of India, who have
\ngiven each  of its  citizens Freedom  of conscience  and the
\nright to freely profess, practise and propogate religion and
\nwho have  given every  religious denomination  the right  to
\nfreely\tmanage\t its  religious\t  affairs,   mean   by\t the
\nexpressions’religion’ and  ‘religious denomination’.  We are
\nconcerned with\twhat these  expressions are designed to mean
\nin Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Any Freedom or Right
\ninvolving the  conscience  must\t naturally  receive  a\twide
\ninterpretation and  the expression ‘religion’ and ‘religious
\ndenomination’ must  therefore, be  interpreted in no narrow,
\nstifling sense but is a liberal, expansive way.\n<\/p>\n
     Etymology is  of no  avail. Religion  is  derived\tfrom
\n‘religare’ which means “to bind”. Etymologically, therefore,
\nevery bond between two people is a religion, but that is not
\ntrue.  To   say\t so  is\t only  to  indulge  in\tetymological
\ndeception. Quite  obviously, religion  is much\tmore than  a
\nmere bond uniting people.\n<\/p>\n
     Quite obviously,  again, religion is not to be confined
\nto  the\t traditional,  established,  well-known\t or  popular
\nreligions  like\t  Hinduism,   Mahomedanism,   Buddhism\t and
\nChristianity. There  may be  and, indeed, there are, in this
\nvast country,  several religions, less known or even unknown
\nescept in  the remote corners or in the small pockets of the
\nland where  they may  be practised.  A religion\t may not  be
\nwide-spread. It\t may have  little following. It may not have
\neven a name, as indeed most tribal religions do not have. We
\nmay only  describe them\t by adding  the suffix\t‘ism’ to the
\nname of\t the founder-teacher,  the tribe,  the area  or\t the
\ndeity. The nomenclature is not of the essence. Again, a band
\nof persons, large or small, may not be said to be
\n742<\/span>
\nadherents of  a religion  merely  because  they\t share\tsome
\ncommon beliefs\tand common  interests  and  practise  common
\nrites and  ceremonies;\tnor  can  pietistic  recitation\t and
\nsolemn ritual  combine to  produce religion, on that account
\nonly.  Secret  societies  dedicated  to\t secular  tasks\t and
\nindulging in  queer oaths and observances, guilds and groups
\nof persons  who meet  but to  dine and\twine but who subject
\ntheir members  to extravagant initiation ceremonies, village
\nand tribal sorcerers and coven of witches who chant rant and
\ndance in  the most  weird way  possible are  all far removed
\nfrom  religion.\t  They\tappear\t to  lack   the\t  ‘spiritual
\nconnection’. But,  all this  is unsatisfactory.\t We are\t not
\narriving at  any definition  of religion. We are only making
\nperipheral journeys  and not  getting any nearer to the core
\nof the problem presented to us.\n<\/p>\n
     Let  us   examine\tthe   relevant\tprovisions   of\t the
\nConstitution for such light as they may throw on the meaning
\nof the\texpressions ‘religion’\tand religious denomination’.
\nThey are  not defined. The word ‘religion’ does not occur in
\nthe Preamble  to the  Constitution, but\t the  Preamble\tdoes
\npromise to  secure to  its  citizens  “Liberty\tof  thought,
\nexpression, belief,  faith  and\t worship”.  The\t Freedom  of
\nconscience and\tthe Right to profess, propagate and practice
\nreligion,flow of  the idea  so expressed in the Preamble. In
\nPart-III of  the Constitution,\tunder  the  head  “Right  to
\nFreedom of  Religion”, there  are  four\t Articles.  Art25(i)
\nguarantees to all persons, subject to public order, morality
\nand health  and to  the other  provisions of Part-III of the
\nConstitution, freedom  of conscience and the right freely to
\nprofess,  practise   and  propagate   religion.\t Freedom  of
\nconscience is not to be separated from the Right to profess,
\npractice  and  propagate  religion.  They  go  together\t and
\ntogether they form part of the Right to Freedom of Religion.
\nClause (2)  of Art. 25<\/a>, however, stipulates that the freedom
\nand the\t right guaranteed  by cl.  (1) shall not prevent the
\nState from  making any\tlaw regulating\tor restricting,\t any
\neconomic, financial,  political or  other  secular  activity
\nwhich may  be associated  with\treligious  practice.  Or  to
\nprovide for social welfare and reform or to throw open Hindu
\nreligious institutions\tof a public character to all classes
\nand sections  of Hindus. So, the Article makes it clear that
\nsecular activity may be associated with Religion, though the
\nguarantee of  the article  does not extend to such activity,
\nArt. 26<\/a>\t guarantees that every religious denomination or any
\nsection thereof\t shall have  the right,\t subject  to  public
\norder,\tmorality  and  health,\tto  establish  and  maintain
\ninstitutions for
\n743<\/span>
\nreligious and charitable purposes, to manage its own affairs
\nin matters  of religion,  to own  and  acquire\tmovable\t and
\nimmovable  property  and  to  administer  such\tproperty  in
\naccordance with law.Art. 27 prohibits compulsion for payment
\nof taxes  for promotion\t of any particular religion. Art. 28<\/a>
\nbars  religious\t  instruction  in   any\t institution  wholly
\nmaintained out\tof State  funds and  prevents compulsion  to
\nattend any  religious instruction  or religious\t worship  in
\neducational  institutions   recognised\tby   the  State\t  or
\nreceiving aid out of State funds.\n<\/p>\n
     Apart from\t Articles 25  to  28,  the  word  ‘religion’
\noccurs in Arts. 15(1), 15(2), 16(2), 16(5), 23(2), 29(2) and
\n30 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     Art.  15(1)<\/a>   prescribes  that   the  State  shall\t not
\ndiscriminate  against\tany  citizen   on  grounds  only  of
\nreligion, race,\t caste, sex,  place of birth or any of them.
\nArt. 15(2)<\/a>  provides, in  particular, that no citizen shall,
\non ground only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth
\nor any\tof them,  be subject  to any  disability,  liability
\nrestriction or\tcondition with\tregard to  access to  shops,
\npublic\t restaurants,\t hotels\t  and\tplaces\t of   public
\nentertainment; or  the use  of wells,  tanks, bathing ghats,
\nroads and  places of  public  resort  maintained  wholly  or
\npartly out  of State  funds or\tdedicated to  the use of the
\ngeneral public.\n<\/p>\n
     Art.16(2)<\/a> guarantees  that no citizen shall, on grounds
\nonly of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth,
\nresidence  or\tany  of\t  them,\t be   ineligible   for,\t  or
\ndiscriminated against in respect of any employment or office
\nunder  the   State.  Art.   16(5)<\/a>  exempts  from  the  right
\nguaranteed under  Art. 16<\/a>  the operation  of any  law  which
\nprovides that  the incumbent of an office in connection with
\nthe affairs  of any  religious or denominational institution
\nor any\tmember of  the governing  body thereof\tshall  be  a
\nperson professing  a particular\t religion or  belonging to a
\nparticular denomination.\n<\/p>\n
     Art.  23(2<\/a>),   while  enabling   the  State  to  impose
\ncompulsory service  for public purposes, prohibits the State
\nfrom making  any discrimination on grounds only of religion,
\nrace, caste or class or any of them.\n<\/p>\n
744<\/span><\/p>\n
     Art. 29(2)<\/a>\t provides that\tno citizen  shall be  denied
\nadmission to  any educational  institution maintained by the
\nState or  receiving aid\t out of\t State funds  on grounds  of
\nreligion, race, caste, language or any of them.\n<\/p>\n
     Art. 30(1)<\/a>\t guarantees to all minorities, whether based
\non  religion   or  language   the  right  to  establish\t and
\nadminister educational\tinstitutions of\t their choice.\tArt.
\n30(2)<\/a> further provides that the State shall not, in granting
\naid to\teducational institutions,  discriminate against\t any
\neducational institutions  on the ground that it is under the
\nmanagement of  a minority,  whether  based  on\treligion  or
\nlanguage.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  readily seen  that the several provisions of the
\nConstitution where the expressions ‘religion’ and ‘religious
\ndenomination’ are  used are either those which are concerned
\nwith equality  and equal  opportunity  or  those  which\t are
\nconcerned with\tfreedom of religion. Art. 15(1<\/a>), Art. 16(2<\/a>),
\nArt. 23(2<\/a>),  Art. 29(2)<\/a>\t are the  several equality and equal
\nopportunity  clauses   of  the\t   Constitution\t  which\t bar
\ndiscrimination on  the ground  of religion,  and they  place
\nreligion in  equation with race, caste, sex, place of birth,
\nresidence and  language for  the  purposes  of\tthe  various
\naspects of  equality dealt  with by them. Art. 30<\/a> recognises
\nthe existence  of minority  groups based  on religion  along
\nwith minority  groups based on language. Arts. 25 to 28 deal
\nwith the  Right to  Freedom of\tReligion which,\t as we\tsaid
\nearlier is  traceable to  the idea  of “Liberty\t of Thought,
\nExpression, Belief,  Faith and\tWorship” in  the Preamble to
\nthe Constitution.  Art. 25<\/a>  guarantees freedom of conscience
\nand the\t right freely  to profess,  practise  and  propagate
\nreligion, but  saves  laws  regulating\tor  restricting\t any
\neconomic, financial,  political or  other  secular  activity
\nwhich may  be associated  with religious  practice.  Reading
\nArt. 25<\/a>\t in the\t background of\tthe  proclamation  regarding
\nLiberty in  the Preamble  to the Constitution, we may safely
\nconclude that the Constitution views religion, as comprising
\nthought, expression,  belief, faith or worship, as involving
\nthe conscience\tand as\tsomething which\t may  be  professed,
\npractised and propagated and which is any man’s attribute in
\nthe same  manner as  race, sex\tlanguage, residence  etc. We
\nalso  see  that\t economic,  financial,\tpolitical  or  other
\nsecular activity  may be  associated with religious practice
\nthough such  activity is  not covered  by the  guarantee  of
\nfreedom of  conscience and  the\t right\tfreely\tto  profess,
\npractise  and\tpropagate  religion.  So,  the\tConstitution
\nconsiders Religion  as\ta  matter  of  thought,\t expression,
\nbelief, faith and worship, a matter
\n745<\/span>
\ninvolving  the\t conscience  and   a  matter  which  may  be
\nprofessed, practised  and propagated by anyone and which may
\neven have  some secular activity associated with it. We have
\nalready\t said  that  any  Freedom  or  Right  involving\t the
\nconscience must\t naturally receive a wide interpretation and
\nthe  expressions  ‘Religion’  and  ‘Religious  Denomination’
\nmust, therefore, be interpreted in no narrow, stifling sense
\nbut in a liberal, expansive way.\n<\/p>\n
     How has  the Court\t looked at  the expression ‘religion
\nand ‘religious denomination’ and how has the Court attempted
\nto define  them ?  We begin  with the well-known Shirur Mutt
\ncase where  Mukherjea J, speaking for himself and six of his
\ncolleagues, examined  the question  in some  detail and,  of
\ncourse, with  great erudition. We must first notice that the
\nCourt, there,  was considering\tthe question of the vires of
\nthe Madras  Hindu Religious  and Charitable  Endowments\t Act<\/a>
\n1951  which   was  sought  to  be  made\t applicable  to\t the
\ninstitution known  as Shirur  Mutt, one\t of the\t eight Mutts
\nsituated at  Udipi and\treputed to have been founded by Shri
\nMadhwa Charya,\tthe renowned  exponent of ‘dualistic thesim’
\nin the Hindu Religion. The trustees and the beneficiaries of
\nthe Mutt,  it was  claim and established, were the followers
\nof Shri\t Madhwa\t Charya.  The  question\t arose\twhether\t the
\nspiritual fraternity  constituted by  the followers  of Shri
\nMadhwa Charya could be said to be a ‘religious denomination’
\nwithin the  meaning of\tArt. 26<\/a>,  entitling them  to  manage
\ntheir own  affairs  in\t‘matters  of  religion’.  The  Court
\nnoticed that  while cl.\t (b) of\t Art.  26<\/a>  guaranteed  to  a
\nreligious denomination\tthe right  to manage its own affairs
\nin matters  of religion,  other clauses of the Article dealt
\nwith the  right of  a religious\t denomination to acquire and
\nown property  and to  administer such property in accordance
\nwith law.  The administration of its property by a religious
\ndenomination having  thus been placed on a different footing
\nfrom the  right to  manage its\town affairs  in\t matters  of
\nreligion, the Court said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “the\tlatter\tis  a  Fundamental  Right  which  no
\n     legislature can  take away,  whereas the  former can be
\n     regulated by  laws which  the legislature\tcan  validly
\n     impose. It\t is clear,  therefore, that questions merely
\n     relating to administration of properties belonging to a
\n     religious group  or  institution  are  not\t matters  of
\n     religion to which clause (b) of the Article applies.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
746<\/span><\/p>\n
Mukherjea, J,  then proceeded  to consider what were matters
\nof religion  ? He  noticed that\t ‘religion’ was a term which
\nwas hardly  susceptible of any rigid definition. He rejected
\nthe definition\tgiven in  Davis v. Benson as neither precise
\nnor adequate and went on to say,
\n\t  “Religion is\tcertainly a  matter  of\t faith\twith
\n     individuals or  communities and  it is  not necessarily
\n     theistic. There  are well known religions in India like
\n     Buddhism and  Jainism which do not believe in God or in
\n     any Intelligent First Cause. A religion undoubtedly has
\n     its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which are
\n     regarded  by   those  who\t profess  that\treligion  as
\n     conducive to  their spiritual  well being, but it would
\n     not be correct to say that religion is nothing else but
\n     a doctrine\t or belief. A religion may not only lay down
\n     a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it
\n     might prescribe  rituals and  observavances, ceremonies
\n     and modes\tof worship  which are  regarded as  integral
\n     parts of religion, and these forms and dress.”
\nMukherjea,J., accepted the following observations of Latham,
\nCJ in Vide Adelaide Company v. The Commonwealth(1), as fully
\napplicable to  the protection  of religion  as guaranteed by
\nthe Indian Constitution:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It is  sometimes suggested  in discussions on the
\n     subject of\t freedom of  religion that, though the civil
\n     Government\t should\t  not\tinterfere   with   religious
\n     opinions, it  nevertheless may  deal as it pleases with
\n     any acts  which are  done\tin  pursuance  of  religious
\n     belief without  infringing the  principle of freedom of
\n     religion. It  appears to me to be difficult to maintain
\n     this distinction  as relevant  to the interpretation of
\n     section 116<\/a>. The section refers in express terms to the
\n     exercise of religion, and, therefore, it is intended to
\n     protect from  the operation  of any  Commonwealth\tlaws
\n     acts which\t are done  in the exercise of religion. Thus
\n     the section  goes\tfar  beyond  protecting\t liberty  of
\n     opinion. It  protects also\t acts done  in pursuance  of
\n     religious belief as part of religion.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
747<\/span><\/p>\n
Mukherjea, J.,\tthereafter,  pointed  out  that\t freedom  of
\nreligion under the Indian Constitution also was not confined
\nto  religious\tbeliefs\t only,\t it  extended  to  religious
\npractices as  well subject  to the  restrictions  which\t the
\nConstitution itself had laid down. Under Art. 26(b)<\/a> he said,
\na religious  denomination or  organisation enjoyed  complete
\nautonomy in  the matter\t of deciding  as to  what rites\t and
\nceremonies were\t essential according  to the tenets of their
\nreligion  they\t held  and  no\toutside\t authority  had\t any
\njurisdiction  to  interfere  with  their  decision  in\tsuch
\nmatters. But,  he said, the scale of expenses to be incurred
\nin connection  with the\t religious observances\twould  be  a
\nmatter\tof  administration  of\tproperty  belonging  to\t the
\nreligious denomination\tand  to\t be  controlled\t by  secular
\nauthorities in\taccordance with\t any  law  laid\t down  by  a
\ncompetent legislature. He added,
\n\t  “It should be noticed, however, that under Art. 26<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
     (d),  it  is  the\tFundamental  Right  of\ta  religious
\n     denomination or  its representative  to administer\t its
\n     properties in  accordance with  the law;  and the\tlaw,
\n     therefore, must  leave the\t right of  administration to
\n     the religious  denomination  itself,  subject  to\tsuch
\n     restrictions and  regulations as  it  might  choose  to
\n     impose  a\t law  which   takes  away   the\t  right\t  of
\n     administration  from   the\t  hands\t  of   a   religious
\n     denomination altogether  and  vests  it  in  any  other
\n     authority, would  amount to  a violation  of the  right
\n     guaranteed under cl. D of Art. 26″.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
Mukherjea,  J  also  considered\t the  question\twhether\t the
\nfollowers of  Madhwacharya could  be considered\t a religious
\ndenomination and  whether  Sivalli  Brahmins  constituted  a
\nsection of  that religious  denomination. The meaning of the
\nword denomination  was culled out from the Oxford Dictionary
\nwhere  it   has\t been  defined\tto  mean  ‘a  collection  of
\nindividuals  classed   together\t under\t the  same  name.  a
\nreligious  sect\t  or  body   having  a\t common\t faith\t and
\norganisation  and   designated\tby   a\tdistinctive   name”.
\nReference was  then made  to “a galaxy of religious teachers
\nand philosophers  who founded  the different  sects and sub-
\nsects of  the Hindu  religion that  we find  in India at the
\npresent day”.  It was  emphatically stated  that each one of
\nsuch  sects   or  sub-sects  could  certainly  be  called  a
\nreligious denomination as it was designated by a distinctive
\nname-in many  cases it was the name of the founder-and had a
\ncommon faith  and  common  spiritual  organisation.  It\t was
\nobserved,” the\tfollowers of  Ramanuja, who are known by the
\nname of\t Shri Vaishnobas, undoubtedly constitute a religious
\ndenomination; and so do the
\n748<\/span>
\nfollowers of  Madhwacharya and\tother religious teachers. It
\nis a fact well-established by tradition that the eight Udipi
\nMaths were  founded by Madhwacharya himself and the trustees
\nand the beneficiaries of these Maths profess to be followers
\nof that\t teacher. The  High Court has found that the Math in
\nquestion is  in charge\tof Sivalli Brahmins who constitute a
\nsection\t of  the  followers  of\t Madhwacharya.\tAs  Art.  26<\/a>
\ncontemplates not merely a religious denomination, but also a
\nsection\t thereof,  the\tMath  or  the  spiritual  fraternity
\nrepresented by\tit can\tlegitimately come within the purview
\nof this article.”\n<\/p>\n
     So, in  the Shirur\t Mutt case,  Mukherjea\tJ  expressed
\ndifficulty in  defining the term ‘religion’ with exactitude,
\nbut explained  it  as  something  founded  upon\t beliefs  or
\ndoctrines, regarded  by those  professing  the\treligion  as
\nconductive to  their spiritual\twell-being and\tattended  by
\npractices and  observances viewed by the religious community
\nas integral  to the  religion. Mukherjea  J, however,  found
\nless difficulty\t in defining ‘religious denomination’ in the
\nsame terms as in the Oxford Dictionary.\n<\/p>\n
     Ratilal Panachand\tGandhi v.  The State  of Bombay\t and
\nOrs<\/a>.(1) was  decided by\t five  of  the\tLearned\t Judges\t who
\nconstituted the\t Bench which  decided the  Shirur Mutt case.
\nWhat was  said in  the Shirur Mutt was reiterated and it was
\nagain emphasised  that religion\t was not  merely an opinion,
\ndoctrine or belief and that it had its outward expression in
\nacts as\t well. The  following observations  of Davar  J,  in
\nJamshedjee v.  Sunnabal(2) were\t approved: “If\tthis is\t the
\nbelief of  the community, and it is proved undoubtedly to be
\nthe belief  of the Zoroastrian community,-a secular judge is
\nbound to  accept that  belief-it is  not for  him to  sit in
\njudgment on  that belief,  he is not right to interfere with
\nthe conscience of a donor who makes a gift in favour of what
\nhe believes  to be  the advancement  of his religion and the
\nwelfare of  his community  or mankind”. I have stated almost
\nat the\toutset that  judges’  faith  or\t lack  of  faith  in
\nreligion is  irrelevant in  deciding  what  are\t matters  of
\nreligion.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  Durgah Committee  Ajmer v.\t Syed Hussain  Ali &
\nothers<\/a>(3) the Court reiterated the position that the freedom
\nguaranteed by Art. 25(1)<\/a> was not only the right to entertain
\nsuch religious beliefs as
\n749<\/span>
\nmy appeal  to his conscience but also afforded him the right
\nto exhibit his belief in his conduct by such outward acts as
\nmay appear  to him  proper in  order to spread his ideas for
\nthe benefit  of others.\t A note\t of  caution  was,  however,
\nstruck and it was said that practices in order to qualify as
\nmatters of  religion should be regarded by the said religion
\nas its\tessential  and\tintegral  part.\t Otherwise,  it\t was
\npointed out, even purely secular practices which were not an
\nessential or  an integral  part of  religion were  apt to be
\nclothed\t with  a  religious  form  and\tstake  a  claim\t for
\ntreatment as  religious practices.  Mukherjea J’s definition
\nof ‘religious denomination’ in the Shirur Mutt case was also
\naccepted and  the case\twas permitted  to be  argued on\t the
\nbroad  and   general  ground   that  the   Chishtia  Soofies
\nconstituted either  a religious denomination or a section of
\na religious denomination.\n<\/p>\n
     In Tilkayat  Shri Govindlalji  Maharaj v.\tThe State of
\nRajasthan and  Ors<\/a>.(1) the  question was  whether the famous
\nNath Dwara  Temple was\ta public temple? It was held that it
\nwas a  public temple.  It was  assumed that the followers of
\nVallabha constituted a religious denomination.\n<\/p>\n
     In Raja  Virakishore v.  State of\tOrissa<\/a>(2)-one of the
\narguments sought to be advanced before the Supreme Court was
\nthat the  worshippers  of  Lord\t Jagan\tNath  constituted  a
\nreligious denomination\tand that  the Shri Jagan Nath Temple
\nAct, which  took away  the  right  of  management  from\t the
\ndenomination, contravened  the Fundamental  Right guaranteed
\nby Art.\t 26(d)<\/a> of  the Constitution. The answer of the State
\nwas that  the temple did not pertain to any particular sect,
\ncult or\t creed of  Hindus, but was a public temple above all
\nsects, cults  and creeds  and, therefore,  it  was  not\t the
\ntemple of any particular denomination The Court however, did
\nnot permit  the worshippers  to raise  the argument  as\t the
\nstate of pleadings were found to be defective.\n<\/p>\n
     In Sasti  Yagnapurushad ji and Ors. v. Muldas Bhudardas
\nVaishya\t and   Anr<\/a>.(1)\tthe   question\tarose\twhether\t the
\nSwaminarayan sect  followed a religion distinct and separate
\nfrom the  Hindu\t religion  and\twhether,  consequently,\t the
\ntemple belonging to the sect was outside the ambit of Bombay
\nHindu Places of Public Worships (Entry
\n750<\/span>
\nAuthorisation) Act  ? Gajendragadkar,  CJ, on  an exhaustive
\nconsideration of  various Hindu\t Texts\tand  the  texts\t and
\nhistory of  the Swaminarayan  sect, came  to the  conclusion
\nthat the  Swaminarayan sect was not a religion, distinct and
\nseparate from the Hindu Religion.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is   obvious  that   religion,\t undefined   by\t the
\nConstitution, is  incapable of\tprecise judicial  definition
\neither.\t In   the  background\tof  the\t provisions  of\t the
\nConstitution and  the light  shed by  judicial precedent, we
\nmay say\t religion is  a matter\tof faith.  It is a matter of
\nbelief and  doctrine. It  concerns the\tconscience i.e.\t the
\nspirit of  man. It  must be  capable of\t overt expression in
\nword and deed, such as, worship or ritual. So, religion is a
\nmatter of  belief and doctrine, concerning the human spirit,
\nexpressed overtly  in the  form of  ritual and worship. Some
\nreligions are  easily identifiable  as religions,  some\t are
\neasily identifiable  as not religions. There are many in the
\npenumbral region  which\t instinctively\tappear\tto  some  as
\nreligion and to others as not religions. There is no formula
\nof  general   application.  There  is  no  knife-edge  test.
\nPrimarily, it  is a  question of  the consciousness  of\t the
\ncommunity, how\tdoes the  fraternity or\t sodality (if  it is
\npermissible to\tuse the\t word without  confining it to Roman
\nCatholic groups)  regard itself,  how do  others regard\t the
\nfraternity or  sodality. A  host of  other circumstances may
\nhave to\t be considered,\t such as, the origin and the history
\nof the community, the beliefs and the doctrines professed by
\nthe community,\tthe rituals  observed by the community, what
\nthe founder, if any, taught, what the founder was understood
\nby his followers to have taught, etc. In origin, the founder
\nmay not\t have intended\tto found any religion at all. He may
\nhave merely  protested against some rituals and observances;
\nhe may\thave  disagreed\t with  the  interpretation  of\tsome
\nearlier religious tenets. What he said, what he preached and
\nwhat he\t taught, his  protest, his dissent, his disagreement
\nmight have  developed into a religion in the course of time,
\neven during  his  life-time.  He  may  be  against  religion
\nitself, yet, history and the perception of the community may
\nmake a\treligion out  of what  was  not\t intended  to  be  a
\nreligion and  he may  be hailed\t as the\t founder  of  a\t new
\nreligion. There\t are the  obvious examples  of Buddhism\t and
\nJainism and  for that  matter Christianity  itself.  Neither
\nBuddha nor  Mahavira, nor  Christ ever thought of founding a
\nnew religion, yet three great religions bear their names.\n<\/p>\n
     If the  word ‘religion’  is once explained, though with
\nsome difficulty, the expression ‘religious denomination’ may
\nbe defied
\n751<\/span>
\nwith less  difficulty. As  we mentioned earlier Mukherjea J,
\nborrowed the  meaning of  the  word  denomination  from\t the
\nOxford\tDictionary   and  adopted  it  to  define  religious
\ndenomination  as   “a  collection   of\tindividuals  classed
\ntogether under\tthe same  name, a  religious  sect  or\tbody
\nhaving a  common faith\tand organisation and designated by a
\ndistinctive name”.  The followers of Ramanuja, the followers
\nof Madhwacharya,  the followers\t of Vallabha,  the  Chishtia
\nSoofies have  been found  or assumed  by  the  Court  to  be
\nreligious denominations. It will be noticed that these sects
\npossessed no  distinctive name except that of their founder-
\nteacher and  had no  special organisation  except  a  vague,
\nloose-un-knit one. The really distinctive feature about each
\none of\tthese sects was a shared belief in the tenets taught
\nby the\tteacher-founder. We  take care\tto mention here that
\nwhatever the  ordinary features\t of a religious denomination
\nmay be considered to be, all are not of equal importance and
\nsurely the  common faith  of  the  religious  body  is\tmore
\nimportant than the other features. It is, perhaps, necessary
\nto  say\t  that\tjudicial   definitions\tare   not  statutory
\ndefinitions, they are mere explanations, every word of which
\nis not to be weighed in golden scales. Law has a tendency to
\nharden with  the passage of time and judicial pronouncements
\nare made  to assume the form of statutory pronouncements. So
\nsoon as\t a word\t or  expression\t occur\tin  the\t statute  is
\njudicially defined,  the tendency is to try to interpret the
\nlanguage employed  by the  judges in the judicial definition
\nas if  it has  been transformed into a statutory definition.
\nThat  is   wrong.  Always,   words  and\t expressions  to  be
\ninterpreted are\t those employed in the statute and not those
\nused  by   judges  for\t felicitous  explanation.   Judicial
\ndefinition, we\trepeat, is  explanatory and  not definitive.
\nOne remark requires to be added here. Religious denomination
\nhas not to owe allegiance to any parent religion. The entire
\nfollowing of  a religion  may be  no more than the religious
\ndenomination. This  may particularly  be so  in the  case of
\nsmall religious\t groups or  `developing’ religions, that is,
\nreligions in the formative stage.\n<\/p>\n
     We may  now consider whether Aurobindoism-if one may be
\nexcused for  using the\tword `Aurobindoism’ to describe what
\nShri  Aurobindo\t  taught  and  practised  and  what  he\t was
\nunderstood by his followers to have taught and practised-was
\na religion and whether the followers of Shri Aurobindo could
\nbe called a religious denomination.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Aurobindo  was a poet, a savant, a philosopher and
\na mystic. Was he or was he not a religious teacher ?\n<\/p>\n
752<\/span><\/p>\n
     The Encyclopaedia\tBrittanica (1978  Edition) describes
\nhim as “seer, poet and Indian nationalist who originated the
\nphilosophy of  cosmic salvation through spiritual evolution,
\na divine  existence that will appear through the development
\nof the\t“agnostic man”\tto usher in a transcendant spiritual
\nage in\twhich man  and the  universe are  destined to become
\ndivine”. The  Encyclopaedia goes  on  to  say,\t“he  devoted
\nhimself for  the rest  of his life solely to the development
\nof his\tunique philosophy. There (at Pondicherry) he founded
\nan ashrama (retreat) as an international cultural centre for
\nspiritual development, attracting students from all over the
\nworld. The  only requirement for entrance was a sincere wish
\nto develop spiritually.”\n<\/p>\n
     “According to  Aurobindo’s theory\tof cosmic salvation,
\nthe paths  to union  with Brahman  are two-way\tstreets,  or
\nchannels, Enlightment  comes to\t man from  above, while\t the
\nspirital mind  (supermind)  of\tman  strives  through  logic
\nillumination to\t reach up-ward\tfrom below.  When these\t two
\nforces blend in an individual, agnostic man is created. This
\nlogic illumination  transcends both reason and intuition and
\neventually leads  to the  freeing of the individual from the
\nbonds of  individuality and,  by extension  all mankind will
\neventually achieve mukti (liberation)”.\n<\/p>\n
     “Thus, Aurobindo  created a dialectic mode of salvation
\nnot only  for the  individual but for all mankind. Energy of
\nsachidananda (“existence,  thought, joy”)  comes  down\tfrom
\nBrahman (thesis)  to meet  energy from\tthe supermind of man
\nstriving upward\t toward spirituality  (antithesis) and melds
\nin man\tto create a new spiritual superman (synthesis). From
\nthese  evolved\t divine\t beings,   a  divine  universe\talso
\nevolved.”\n<\/p>\n
     Under the\thead `History  of  Hinduism’.  Encyclopaedia
\nBrittanica again refers to Aurobindo and says :\n<\/p>\n
     “Another modern  teacher whose  doctrines have had some
\ninfluence outside  India was  Sri Aurobindo,  who began\t his
\ncareer\tas  a  revolutionary.  He  withdrew  from  politics,
\nhowever,  and\tsettled\t in   Pondicherry,  then   a  French
\npossession. There  he established an ashrama (a retreat) and
\nachieved a  high reputation  as a sage. His followers looked
\non him\tas the first incarnate manifestation of super-beings
\nwhose evolution\t he prophesied,\t and apprently\the  did\t not
\ndiscourage this\t belief. After\this death, the leadership of
\nthe Aurobindo  Ashram was  taken over  by “the\tMother”, Mme
\nMira
\n753<\/span>
\nRichard, a  French-woman who  had been\tone of\this  leading
\ndisciples.”\n<\/p>\n
     The Encyclopaedia\tBrittanica refers to Aurobindo again
\nunder the head `Idealism’ and says :\n<\/p>\n
     “Aurobindo,  reinterpreting   the\t Indian\t  Idealistic
\nheritage in the light of his own Western education, rejected
\nthe maya doctrine of illusion, replacing it with the concept
\nof evolution,  aguring that the “illumination of individuals
\nwill lead to the emergence of a divine community”. Aurobindo
\nfounded the  influential Pondicherry Ashram, a religious and
\nphilosophical community, and headed it until his death.”\n<\/p>\n
     The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (1972 Edition) says,
\n\t  “Shri Aurobindo  was an  Indian metaphysician\t and
\n     founder of new religious movement with head-quarters at
\n     Pondicherry-The religious\tmovement associated with him
\n     has increased its following in India, and has made some
\n     converts in  the West………God\tmust `descent’\tinto
\n     human experience.\tThis illumination of individual will
\n     lead    to\t    the\t   emergence\tof    a\t   divinised
\n     community……………Aurobindo produced\t a synthesis
\n     between older  Indian religious  ideas  and  the  world
\n     affirming attitudes of Christian theism.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  Dictionary   of  Comparative\t Religion  says\t  of
\nAurobindo :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “According to\t Aurobindo, there  is a\t progressive
\n     evolution of  the divine being through matter to higher
\n     spiritual forms,  and the Aurobindo movement is held to
\n     represent vanguard\t of this evolutionary process in our
\n     own times.\t Aurobindo practised and taught an `integral
\n     yoga’ in  which meditative\t and spiritual exercises are
\n     integrated with  physical,\t cultural  and\tintellectual
\n     pursuits.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Frederic Spiegelberg,  in his book `Living Religions of
\nthe World’ refers to Shri Aurobindo :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We pass  beyond specific religions to a synthetic
\n     vision  of\t the  religious\t impulse  itself,  a  vision
\n     designed to embrace all previous and future history all
\n     previous and  future paths.  Shri Aurobindo  is  a\t man
\n     worshipped by hundreds of thousands and respected by
\n754<\/span>
\n     millions…………In his retreat at Pondicherry he is
\n     less the  philosopher of  Hinduism than the philosopher
\n     of\t religion  in  general,\t the  voice  of\t that  which
\n     comparative religion leaves undisputed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On\t the   topic  Religion,\t  the  Gazetteer  of  India,
\npublished by the Govt. of India, has this to say :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Shri Aurobindo  gave new  interpretations of\t the
\n     vedas and\tThe Vedanta,  and in his Essays on the Gita,
\n     he expounded  what he  called  “the  integral  view  of
\n     life”. His great work, the Life Divine, is a summing up
\n     of his  philosophy of  “the Descent  of the Divine into
\n     Matter”. The importance of Sri Aurobindo’s mission lies
\n     in his attempt to explain the true methods of Yoga.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  clear from\tthese extracts\tthat the  world\t and
\nIndia treated  and respected  Shri Aurobindo  as a religious
\nteacher and  the founder  of a\tnew religious movement whose
\nprincipal thesis  was the  evolution  or  transformation  of
\nhumanity into  divinity through\t the  practice\tof  Integral
\nYoga. One  may or  may not accept Shri Aurobindo’s thesis or
\nteaching, but, without doubt, it was unique ; without doubt,
\nit was\tnovel; without\tdoubt, it  had never  been so taught
\nbefore. Shri  Aurobindo first conceived the theory of Ascent
\nand Descent,  involution and  evolution. He  was  the  first
\nexpositor of  the Integral  Yoga. He  expressly professed to
\ndepart from the Yoga of the Gita and dissented from the Maya
\nVada. Pedestrian  minds like  ours may\tnot  understand\t the
\nniceties of  the metaphysical  exercises involved. We do not
\ndesire to  enter into  any polemics  over  Shri\t Aurobindo’s
\nteachings as it is not within the judicial province to do so
\nexcept to  the limited\textent of  finding out\twhether\t his
\nteachings have the necessary spiritual content to qualify as
\nreligious doctrine  and how  his followers  understood those
\nteachings. So,\twe refrain  from quoting Shri Aurobindo. But
\nthis fact  stands out prominently that whatever else he was,
\nhe  truly  was\ta  religious  teacher  and  taught  and\t was
\nunderstood  to\t have  taught  new  religious  doctrine\t and
\npractice.  I  fail  to\tsee  why  `Aurobindoism’  cannot  be
\nclassified, if\tnot as\ta new  religion, as  a new  sect  of
\nHinduism and  why the  followers of Shri Aurobindo cannot be
\ntermed a religious denomination.\n<\/p>\n
755<\/span><\/p>\n
     Shri Aurobindo,  of  course,  disclaimed  that  he\t was
\nfounding a religion. No great religious teacher ever claimed
\nthat he\t was founding  a new  religion or  a new  school  of
\nreligious  thought.   The  question   is  not  whether\tShri
\nAurobindo refused  to claim or denied that he was founding a
\nnew religion  or a  new\t school\t of  religious\tthought\t but
\nwhether his disciples and the community thought so. There is
\nno  doubt   that  they\tdid,  not  only\t his  disciples\t and
\nfollowers, but\treligious leaders  all the world over and of
\nall faiths.\n<\/p>\n
     If\t the   followers  of  Shri  Aurobindo  constitute  a
\n`religious denomination’,  as, to  my mind, they undoubtedly
\ndo, the\t members of  Shri Aurobindo  Society are certainly a
\ndistinct  and\tidentifiable  section\tof  the\t  `religious
\ndenomination’. The  members of the society are followers and
\ndisciples of  Shri Aurobindo.  The  society  was  formed  to
\npreach\tand   propagate\t the  beliefs  and  ideals  of\tShri
\nAurobindo. The\tprimary object\tof the\tsociety was “To make
\nknown to  the members  of the public in general the aims and
\nideals of  Shri Aurobindo  and the  Mother, their  system of
\nIntegral Yoga and to work for its fulfilment in all possible
\nways and  for the  attainment of  a spiritualised society as
\nenvisaged by  Shri Aurobindo.” It is nobody’s case that this
\nis not\tthe principal  object of  the society  or that it is
\nonly a\tfacade for  other activities. However, it was argued
\nthat  the   Society  had  represented  itself  as,  `a\tnon-
\npolitical, non-religious organisation’ and claimed exemption
\nfrom income  tax on  the  ground  that\tit  was\t engaged  in
\neducational,  cultural\t and  scientific  research.  If\t the
\nsociety consists  of the  disciples  and  followers  of\t Sri
\nAurobindo, if its primary object is to profess, practise and
\npropagate the  system of  Integral Yoga, and, if, therefore,
\nit  is\t a  section   of  a   religious\t denomination,\t the
\ncircumstance  that   it\t is   engaged  in   several  secular
\nactivities and\thas represented itself to be a non-religious
\norganisation for  certain purposes  cannot detract  from the
\nfact that it is a section of a religious denomination within
\nthe  meaning  of  Art.\t26<\/a>  Therefore,\twe  must  hold,\t the
\nAurobindo Society  is a\t section of a religious denomination
\nwithin the  meaning of\tthe expression\tin Art.\t 26<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
     But,  the\t question  is\thas  the  Fundamental  Right
\nguaranteed by  Art.  26<\/a>\t been  infringed  by  the  Auroville
\n(Emergency Provisions) Act<\/a>, 1980. We have to notice straight
\naway that  the Act did not take away or purport to take away
\nthe management of the Shri Aurobindo Society. What it did or
\npurported to do was “to provide for the
\n756<\/span>
\ntaking over,  in the  public interest,\tof the management of
\nAuroville for  a limited  period and  for matters  connected
\ntherewith or incidental thereto.” The long preamble says,
\n\t  “Whereas   Shri    Aurobindo\t Society,   a\tnon-\n<\/p>\n
     governmental organisation\thad been  a channel of funds
\n     for the  setting up  of a\tcultural township  known  as
\n     Auroville, where  people  of  different  countries\t are
\n     expected to  live together\t in harmony in one community
\n     and are  expected to  engage in  cultural, educational,
\n     scientific and other pursuits aiming at human unity.”\n<\/p>\n
\t       x\t x\t   x
\n\t  “AND WHEREAS Auroville was developed as a cultural
\n     township with  the aid of funds received from different
\n     organisations in  and outside  India as  also from\t the
\n     substantial grants\t received from the Central and State
\n     Governments;\n<\/p>\n
\t  AND WHEREAS  pursuant to  the complaints  received
\n     with regard  to the  misuse of  funds by  Sri Aurobindo
\n     Society, a\t committee was set up under the chairmanship
\n     of\t the   Lieutenant-Governor   of\t  Pondicherry\twith
\n     representatives of\t the Government of Tamil Nadu and of
\n     the Ministry of Home Affairs in the Central Government,
\n     and the said committees had, after a detailed scrutiny,
\n     of\t the  accounts\tof  Shri  Aurobindo  Society,  found
\n     instances of  serious irregularities  in the management
\n     of the  said Society,  misutilisation of  its funds and
\n     their diversion to other purposes ;\n<\/p>\n
\t  AND WHEREAS  in view\tof the\tserious difficulties
\n     which have\t arisen with  regard to\t the  management  of
\n     Auroville, it  is necessary to take over, for a limited
\n     period, the management, thereof and any delay in taking
\n     over  the\tmanagement  of\tAuroville  would  be  highly
\n     detrimental  to   the  interests\tand  objectives\t  of
\n     Auroville;\n<\/p>\n
     The long preamble itself explains what Auroville is. S.
\n3(c)<\/a> of the Act defines Auroville as meaning “so much of the
\nundertakings as\t form part  of, or  are\t relatable  to,\t the
\ntownship which\tis known  as Auroville\tand the\t charter  of
\nwhich  proclaimed  by  the  `Mother’  on  the  23rd  day  of
\nFebruary, 1968”.\n<\/p>\n
757<\/span><\/p>\n
     Now, the  idea of\tAuroville was conceived by Madame M.
\nAlfasse,  affectionately   and\trespectfully  known  to\t the
\ndisciples and followers of Shri Aurobindo as the Mother. The
\nidea  of   a   cultural\t  township   which   would   promote
\ninternational understanding and world peace had great appeal
\nto  the\t  Government  of   India  and\tthe  United  Nations
\nEducational, Scientific\t and Cultural  Organisation and they
\nextended their\tsupport to  the project.  But, things turned
\nout to\tbe  not\t so  smooth-sailing  after  all.  There\t was
\ndissension among  the members of the Shri Aurobindo Society.
\nThings came  to such  a\t pass  that  the  impugned  Act\t was
\nnecessitated. Misra J. has narrated the facts leading to the
\nintervention of parliament. Parliament concerned itself with
\nthe management\tof Auroville only and with no other activity
\nof the\tShri Aurovindo\tSociety, including  `its affairs  in
\nmatters\t of  religion’.\t In  fact,  section  4(2)<\/a>  makes  it
\nexplicit that, except for matters relating to the management
\nof Auroville,  the provisions  of the  West Bengal Societies
\nRegistration  Act,   1961,  under   which  the\tSociety\t was
\nregistered, shall  continue to\tapply to  the Society in the
\nsame manner  as before.\t Since\tthe  only  activity  of\t the
\nSociety which  was touched  by the Act was the management of
\nAuroville, the\tquestion  arises  whether  Auroville  is  an
\ninstitution established\t and maintained\t for  religious\t and
\ncharitable purposes  and whether its management of Auroville
\nis `a matter of religion’. Auroville is a township and not a
\nplace of  worship. It  is a  township dedicated,  not to the
\npractice and  propagation of  any religious  doctrine but to
\npromote international understanding and world peace, surely,
\na secular and not a religious activity. The highest that can
\nbe said in favour of Auroville being a religious institution
\nor its\tmanagement being  a religious matter, is that it was
\nconceived by  the Mother  and shaped  and sculpted  by\tShri
\nAurobindo’s disciples and followers in the pursuit of one of
\nthe ideas  and ideals  of Shri\tAurobindo, a great religious
\nteacher. On  the other\thand, the ideal itself, that is, the
\npromotion of  international understanding and world peace is
\nby no  means a\treligious ideal\t and it\t was because  of the
\nnature of  the ideal  that the\tGovernment of  India and the
\nUNESCO adopted the project. Shri Aurobindo himself was not a
\nmere religious teacher. He was a visionary, a humanist and a
\nnationalist who\t had blossomed\tinto an internationalist. It
\nappears, therefore,  that Auroville, though the child of the
\nMother\tand   though  nurtured\t by  the  devotees  of\tShri
\nAurobindo, has\tan individuality, distinctly secular, of its
\nown. The  management of the International, cultural township
\nof Auroville  is not,  in our opinion, a matter of religion.
\nWe  have   mentioned  earlier\tthat  laws   regulating\t  or
\nrestricting any\t economic,  financial,\tpolitical  or  other
\nsecular
\n758<\/span>
\nactivity which may be associated with religious practice are
\nexcluded from the guarantee of freedom of conscience and the
\nright freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. We
\nhave  also  pointed  out  that\tthe  administration  of\t the
\nproperty of  a religious  denomination is different from the
\nright of  the  religious  denomination\tto  manage  its\t own
\naffairs in  matters of\treligion and  that laws\t may be made
\nwhich regulate\tthe right  to administer  the property\tof a
\nreligious  denomination.   Questions  merely   relating\t  to
\nadministration of  properties belonging to a religious group
\nor institution\tare not\t matters of religion to which clause\n<\/p>\n
(b) of Art. 26<\/a> applies. It has been so decided in the Shirur
\nMutt case  as well  as other  cases following  it.  We\tare,
\ntherefore,  of\t the  view   that  the\tAuroville  Emergency
\nProvisions Act<\/a>\twhich  provides\t for  the  taking  over\t the
\nmanagement of Auroville for a limited period does not offend
\nthe  rights   guaranteed  by   Arts.  25   and\t26   of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
     A passing\treference was  also made  in the  course  of
\nargument to  Arts 29  and 30 of the Constitution, and it was
\nsaid that  the rights guaranteed by those Articles were also
\ninfringed. We  are entirely  at a loss to understand how the
\nrights guaranteed  by Arts.  29 and  30 can  be said to have
\nbeen infringed by the Auroville Emergency Provisions Act<\/a>. No
\nsection of  citizens having  a culture\tof its\town has been
\ndenied the  right to  conserve that culture and no religious
\nminority has  been denied  the right  to  establish  and  to
\nadminister an educational institution of its choice.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  several other  questions  argued  before  us  I
\naccept the  conclusion of  Misra J.  The Writ  Petitions are
\naccordingly dismissed but in the circumstances there will be
\nno order regarding costs.\n<\/p>\n
     MISRA J.  The first  two petitions\t under Article 32<\/a> of
\nthe Constitution  of India filed in this Court and the third
\nunder Article  226<\/a> of the Constitution filed in the Calcutta
\nHigh Court  and later  on transferred to this Court, seek to
\nchallenge the  vires of the Auroville (Emergency Provisions)
\nOrdinance,  1980  (Ordinance  No.  19  of  1980),  later  on
\nreplaced by  the Auroville  (Emergency Provisions) Act<\/a>, 1980
\n(Act No.  59 of\t 1980). The  fourth is\tan appeal by special
\nleave against  the  order  of  the  Division  Bench  of\t the
\nCalcutta High  Court dated  21st of  November, 1980 vacating
\nthe interim  order passed  by a\t Single Judge  in  the\twrit
\npetition.  All\t these\tcases\traise  common  questions  of
\nconstitutional importance  and, therefore,  they were posted
\nbefore the Constitution Bench.\n<\/p>\n
759<\/span><\/p>\n
     Man as  a rational\t being,\t endowed  with\ta  sense  of
\nfreedom and  responsibility, does  not remain satisfied with
\nhis material  existence. He  wants to  know and\t realise the
\nmeaning of  his life.  It is this perennial urge in man that
\ninspires him  to indulge  in great  creative activities.  He
\ncreates\t great\tcultures  and  civilisations  and  tries  to
\nrealise the meaning and value of life in and through them.\n<\/p>\n
     To the  biologist life  is indefinable.  It  cannot  be
\ndefined\t in  terms  of\tany  things.  The  biologists  have,
\nhowever, explained  and illustrated characteristics of life.
\nBut no formulation of the nature and characteristics of life
\nhas won\t general acceptance.  It means\tthat the insignia of
\nlife have  not as  yet been comprehended fully. Life has not
\nbeen viewed  in its proper perspective. It still seems to be
\na riddle, a mystery.\n<\/p>\n
     Life appears to be a mystery not only to the scientists
\nbut also to the philosophers. Philosophers may be said to be
\nrather more  conscious of  the difficulties that the concept
\nof life\t involves than the scientists. A philosopher is also
\naware of  the fact  that unless\t one is\t able to  fathom the
\ndepths of  life and  has a full comprehension of its nature,
\none cannot  understand and  determine the  nature  of  human
\npersonality and its destiny.\n<\/p>\n
     Similar other deeper and ultimate problems of life have
\nbeen agitating\tthe mind  of seers  and\t philosophers  viz.,
\nWhere did  the world come from ? Was it created or evolved ?
\nIs there  any unity  in diversity  ? Each  thinker tried  to
\nsolve the  ultimate problems  in his  own way.\tBy and large
\nthey believed  there is\t a real\t creative force\t behind\t the
\nprocess of  the world.\tSome called it as God, the others as
\nultimate  truth,  the  conscience.  According  to  some\t the
\nobjects, if  left to themselves, would remain motionless and
\nfor their  initial movement  they must\thave  required\tsome
\nexternal agency\t which might  have set\tthe  universal\tball
\nrolling.\n<\/p>\n
     In early  ages when  man knew  little about the laws of
\nnature, he  attributed all  changes  in\t nature\t to  certain
\nagencies, which\t due partly to his egocentric way of viewing
\nthings\tand   partly  to   his\tconscious  or  sub-conscious
\nawareness of  the supremacy of man in the whole hierarchy of
\nthings in  nature, were\t conceived after  the image  of man.
\nLater on,  in view of the supremacy of kings in all walks of
\nlife and  their services  to society,  these  unseen  mighty
\nagencies were  fashioned specifically  after them. Since God
\nwas conceived  to be  the supreme  among such  agencies.  He
\nnaturally was  sought to be represented by the supreme among
\nkings. Thus anthropomorphism, i.e. the idea of
\n760<\/span>
\nGod in\tterms of human figure is partly due to ignorance and
\npartly due  to the  influence of  uncommon  persons  in\t the
\nsociety.\n<\/p>\n
     During 18th  and 19th  centuries the  entire scientific
\nthought sought\tto explain  the\t universe  mechanically\t and
\nstrived to  do away  with  God\tcompletely.  If\t it  allowed
\nanything like  God to  enter its  universe at all, it did so
\nonly after transforming Him into a mechanical principle.\n<\/p>\n
     Later  on\t with  the  formulation\t of  the  theory  of
\nrelativity this isolationist view of things has given way to
\none of\tmutual relatedness of each object to every one else.
\nRecognition of the immense potentiality of dynamism inherent
\nin the\tmutual relatedness  of objects\tin the\tuniverse has
\nprecluded the  necessity of  an extra-cosmic or metaphysical
\nprinciple, such\t as the God of Aristotle who was supposed to
\nhave existed  prior to the beginning of the world, and given
\nit the\tfirst stroke  of movement  resulting  in  continuous
\nmotion ever since.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, the\tidea of\t God has  led to  more or  less\t its
\nadjustment to  fresh acquisition of knowledge in each epoch.
\nA view\tof God\twhich fails  to\t do  that  tends  to  become
\ndiscarded in  favour of\t a new one. If it fails to keep pace
\nwith the  expanding horizon  of knowledge, it begins to lose
\nits ground  and shrink\tinto a\tmere cult of only historical
\nimportance, it\tbecomes fossilised  and is liable to crumble
\nat the vital touch of the present.\n<\/p>\n
     Our scriptures  proclaimed from  the  very\t start\tthat
\nthere is only one reality in the world which is described in
\ndifferent ways :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Ekam Sad Wipra Bahuda Vadanti.”\n<\/p>\n
     One of  such Indian  sages\t and  philosophers  was\t Sri
\nAurobindo. He  was born on August 15, 1872 in Calcutta. When
\nhe was\tbarely seven  years old\t he was taken to England for
\neducation. In  view  of\t his  amazing  ability\tin  learning
\nlanguages he  was offered scholarship to join Kings College,
\nCambridge.   There   he\t  distinguished\t  himself   by\t his
\nextraordinary ability  to compose Greek and Latin verses. He
\nis said\t to have  won all  the prizes  for the year in Kings
\nCollege for  Greek and\tLatin verses. He sailed for India in
\n1893 and  settled down\tat  Baroda.  He\t served\t in  several
\ncapacities in  Baroda State,  sometimes as  an administrator
\nand at others as Professor of French and English. During his
\nstay there he learnt Sanskrit.\n<\/p>\n
761<\/span><\/p>\n
     The years\tfrom 1902  to 1910  were stormy ones for Sri
\nAurobindo as he embarked on a course of action to free India
\nfrom British  rule. As\ta result of his political activities
\nand revolutionary  literary efforts  he was  sent to jail in
\n1908. Two  years later\the fled from British India to refuge
\nin the French Mandate of Pondicherry (modern Pondicherry) in
\nSouth-East  India.  He\ttook  a\t decision  to  give  up\t all
\npolitical activities  so as  to concentrate himself with the
\nlife of meditation and yoga at Pondicherry.\n<\/p>\n
     Madam M.  Alfassa, a  French Lady, who came to be known
\nas ‘The\t Mother’ became\t a disciple  of Sri  Aurobindo. Very
\nsoon more  and more  disciples came to join him from various
\nparts of  India and  abroad and\t thus ‘the Ashram’ came into
\nbeing. The  disciples and devoted followers of Sri Aurobindo
\nand the\t Mother with  a view  to propagate  and practise the
\nideals and  beliefs of Sri Aurobindo formed a Society called
\nSri Aurobindo  Society in  the\tyear  1960.  The  petitioner
\nSociety at  all material  times was  and is  still a Society
\nduly registered\t under the  provisions of  the\tWest  Bengal
\nSocieties Registration Act, 1961. This Society is completely
\ndistinct from  Aurobindo Ashram\t in Pondicherry. The Society
\nwas established\t and registered\t for the purpose of carrying
\nout inter alia the following objects in and outside India:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  To make  known to  the members  of the  public  in
\n\t  general the  aims and\t ideals of Sri Aurobindo and
\n\t  the Mother,  their system  of integral yoga and to
\n\t  work for  its fulfilment  in all possible ways and
\n\t  for the  attainment of  a spiritualised society as
\n\t  envisaged by Sri Aurobindo;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) To Train  selected students  and teachers from all
\n\t  over the world in the integral system or education
\n\t  i.e.,\t spiritual,   psychic,\tmental,\t  vital\t and
\n\t  physical;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii)To help  in cash  and\/or kind by way of donations,
\n\t  gifts, subsidies and in also other ways in the all
\n\t  round development  of Sri  Aurobindo International
\n\t  Centre of Education and to help similar centres of
\n\t  education;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) To establish\tstudy groups, libraries, Ashrams and
\n\t  other\t  institutions,\t   centres,   branches\t and
\n\t  societies for\t study and practice of integral yoga
\n\t  of Sri  Aurobindo and\t the Mother  and to help the
\n\t  existing ones;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
762<\/span><\/p>\n
     (v)  To establish\tcentres of  physical culture, sports
\n\t  and volunteer\t organisations for  inculcating\t and
\n\t  promoting the\t spirit of  discipline, co-operation
\n\t  and service  to others and to undertake activities
\n\t  for promotion of health and bodily perfection:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (vi) To organise,\tencourage, promote and assist in the
\n\t  study, research and pursuit of science, literature
\n\t  and fine arts;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (vii)To enquire,  purchase, build, construct or take on
\n\t  lease or  in\texchange  or  hire  any\t movable  or
\n\t  immovable property, or gifts or privileges; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (viii)Generally to\t do all other acts, deeds and things
\n\t  necessary, conductive,  suitable or  incidental to
\n\t  or for  the attainment of the above objects or any
\n\t  of them or part of them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The management  of the  Society vested in its Executive
\nCommittee. Rules  and regulations  have been duly framed for
\nthe management\tof the Society and also for safe custody and
\nprotection of its assets, properties and funds.\n<\/p>\n
     Sri Aurobindo  Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
\nSociety’) preaches  and propagates  the ideals and teachings
\nof Sri\tAurobindo inter\t alia through  its numerous  centres
\nscattered throughout  India by way of weekly meetings of its
\nmembers.\n<\/p>\n
     The Mother as the founder-president also conceived of a
\nproject\t of   setting  up   a  cultural\t township  known  as
\n‘Auroville’ where people of different countries are expected
\nto engage  in cultural, educational and scientific and other
\npursuits aiming\t at human  unity. The  Society\thas  been  a
\nchannel of  funds for setting up the cultural township known
\nas Auroville.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  initiative of  the\t Government  of\t India,\t the
\nUnited\tNations\t  Educational,\t Scientific   and   Cultural
\nOrganisation being of the opinion that the Auroville project
\nwould  contribute   to\t international\t understanding\t and
\npromotion of  peace sponsored  the project  by\tproposing  a
\nresolution to this effect at its General Conference in 1966.
\nThis resolution\t was unanimously adopted at this Conference.
\nBy a further resolution passed in 1961 the UNESCO
\n763<\/span>
\ninvited its member States and international non-governmental
\norganisations to participate in the development of Auroville
\nas an  international cultural township to bring together the
\nvalues\tof   different\tcultures   and\tcivilisations  in  a
\nharmonious  environment\t with  integrated  living  standards
\nwhich correspond to man’s physical and spiritual needs. 1970
\nUNESCO had  directed its Director-General to take such steps
\nas may\tbe feasible,  within  the  budgetary  provisions  to
\npromote\t the   development  of\tAuroville  as  an  important
\ninternational  cultural\t programme.  Sri  Aurobindo  Society
\nreceived large\tfunds in  the shape of grants from different
\norganisations in  India and  abroad for\t development of\t the
\ntownship. The  assistance included  contributions  from\t the
\nState Governments  of the  value of  Rs 66.50  lakhs and the
\nCentral Government of the value of Rs. 26.14 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
     After the\tdeath of the Mother on 17th of November 1973
\na number  of problems of varying nature affecting the smooth
\nrunning of  the project\t cropped up. The Government of India
\non receiving  complaints about\tmismanagement of the project
\nand misuse  of funds  by Sri  Aurobindo\t Society  set  up  a
\ncommittee  under   the\tchairmanship   of  the\tGovernor  of
\nPondicherry with  representatives of the Government of Tamil
\nNadu and  of the  Ministry of  Home Affairs  in the  Central
\nGovernment to  look into  the matter.  The committee  made a
\ndetailed scrutiny  of the  accounts of Sri Aurobindo Society
\nrelating  to   Auroville  and  found  instances\t of  serious
\nirregularities\t in   the   management\t of   the   Society,
\nmisutilisation of  its funds  and their\t diversion to  other
\npurposes. Further,  various other  serious difficulties\t had
\narisen plaguing\t the management\t of Auroville  and rendering
\nthereby any further growth of the township almost impossible
\nin the\tcircumstances that  taking over\t the  management  of
\nAuroville became imperative to ensure growth of the township
\nin tune with its objectives.\n<\/p>\n
     Keeping in\t view the  international  character  of\t the
\nproject and  considering  the  government’s  involvement  in
\nactively sponsoring  the project  through UNESCO, the growth
\nand  management\t of  the  project  had\tbecome\tthe  primary
\nresponsibility of the Government of India. The ideals of the
\nproject formed\tIndia’s highest aspirations, which could not
\nbe allowed  to be  defeated  or\t frustrated.  Sri  Aurobindo
\nSociety had lost complete control over the situation and the
\nmembers of  the Auroville approached the Government of India
\nto give\t protection against  oppression and victimisation at
\nthe hands  of the said Society. There were internal quarrels
\nbetween the various factions of Sri Aurobindo Society. There
\nhave also been instances
\n764<\/span>
\nof law\tand order  situation. Financial\t management  of\t the
\nproject\t has   not  been  sound\t and  several  instances  of
\nmismanagement, diversion  of funds  have  been\trevealed.  A
\nlarge sum  of money  was given\tby Sri\tAurobindo Society to
\nAURO Construction-an  agency whose  status  is\tnot  at\t all
\ndefined, whose\tfunctions and  capabilities  for  taking  up
\nlarge construction  works also\thad not been made known. The
\nGovernment in  the  circumstances  could  not  be  a  silent
\nspectator to  the mismanagement of the project and intereine
\nquarrels amongst  its members,\twhich if  not checked  could
\nlead to\t the destruction  of the project so nobly conceived.
\nThe Government,\t therefore, decided  to issue a Presidential
\nordinance.  After  the\tfiling\tof  the\t writ  petition\t the
\nordinance has  now been replaced by the Auroville (Emergency
\nProvisions) Act<\/a>, 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     The  constitutional   validity  of\t the  Act  has\tbeen
\nchallenged on four grounds:\n<\/p>\n
     1.\t  Parliament has  no legislative competence to enact
\n\t  the impugned statute.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t  The impugned Act infringes Articles 25, 26, 29 and
\n\t  30 of the Constitution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t  The impugned Act is violative of Article 14<\/a> of the
\n\t  Constitution; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.\t  The Act<\/a> was mala fide.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We take  up the  first ground  first. According  to Mr.
\nSoli  Sorabjee,\t  counsel  for\tpetitioners,  the  Auroville
\n(Emergency Provisions) Act<\/a>, 1980, hereinafter referred to as
\nthe impugned Act, is a law relating to a matter in the State
\nLegislative List  and is,  therefore, beyond the legislative
\ncompetence of  Parliament, hence  unconstitutional and void.
\nThe impugned Act, according to him, provides for taking over
\nthe management\tof Auroville  for a  limited period from the
\nSociety. The  management  of  Auroville\t was  prior  to\t the
\nimpugned Act  vested in the Governing Body\/Board of Trustees
\nof the\tSociety under  the Provisions  of  the\tWest  Bengal
\nSocieties Registration\tAct and\t memorandum  and  rules\t and
\nregulations of\tthe Society, as is evident from section 5(5)<\/a>
\nof the impugned Act itself. The society was registered under
\nthe  Societies\t Registration  Act<\/a>,   1860  but\t  after\t the
\nenforcement of\tthe West  Bengal Societies Registration Act,
\n1961 the Society was deemed to be
\n765<\/span>
\nregistered  under   that  Act.\tThe  West  Bengal  Societies
\nRegistration Act  (for short ‘the West Bengal Act<\/a>‘) contains
\nspecific provisions  to deal  with the\tSociety\t adequately.
\nSections 22<\/a>  and 23<\/a>  of the  West  Bengal  Act\tempower\t the
\nRegistrar of  the Societies  to call  for an  information or
\nexplanation relating to the management of the affairs of any
\nsociety registered  thereunder and  also to investigate into
\nthe affairs  of the  society, if  there\t were  circumstances
\nsuggesting that\t the society  was guilty of mismanagement of
\nits affairs  or of any unlawful fact. The Registrar has also
\nthe power to prosecute and punish those persons found guilty
\nof mismanagement.  Under section  26<\/a> of the Act a society is
\nalso liable to be dissolved by the order of the Registrar on
\nthe  ground   inter  alia   of\t mismanagement.\t  Obviously,
\ntherefore, the\tWest  Bengal  Act<\/a>  contains  in\t built\tself
\ncontained provisions  for dealing  with the mismanagement of
\nthe registered societies.\n<\/p>\n
     The  West\tBengal\tAct<\/a>  is\t a  legislation\t exclusively
\nrelatable to  Entry 32\tof List\t II of Seventh Schedule. The
\nprovisions of the West Bengal Act<\/a> apply to the Society as is
\nevident from  section 2(f)<\/a>  and (g)  of\t the  impugned\tAct.
\nSection 4(2)<\/a>  of the  impugned Act,  however,  excludes\t the
\napplication of\tcertain provisions of the West Bengal Act<\/a> to
\nthe Society  and declares  that the  provisions of  the West
\nBengal Act<\/a>  will continue  to apply  to the  Society subject
\nhowever, to  such exclusions.  Section 8(2)<\/a> provides that on
\nrelinquishment of  management by  the Central Government the
\nmanagement of  the property  of the  Society forming part or
\nrelatable to  Auroville shall  vest in the Governing Body of
\nthe Society  and shall\tbe carried on in accordance with the
\nprovisions of  the  West  Bengal  Act<\/a>.\tSection\t 11<\/a>  of\t the
\nimpugned Act  gives over-riding\t effect to  the impugned Act
\nover all  other Acts  (including the  West Bengal  Act<\/a>)\t and
\ninstruments thereunder. Therefore, the object and purpose of
\nthe impugned Act is to take away the management of Auroville
\nfrom the Society and to bring it under the management of the
\nCentral Government under the provisions of the impugned Act.
\nThis process necessarily involves during the takeover period
\nthe suspension\tof the provisions of the West Bengal Act<\/a> and
\nthe memorandum and rules in so far as they are applicable to
\nthe  management\t  of   the   Auroville\t by   the   Society.
\nConsequently,  the   impugned  Act   for  a  limited  period
\nabrogates,   suspends\tor   temporarily   repeals   certain
\nprovisions of  the West\t Bengal Act<\/a>  or in  other words\t the
\nState Act<\/a>  is  pro  tanto  overborne  by  the  Central\tAct<\/a>.
\nTherefore,  the\t  question  arises  whether  Parliament\t has
\nlegislative   competence    to\t repeal,    permanently\t  or
\ntemporarily, any provisions of the West
\n766<\/span>
\nBengal Act<\/a>  which is  a law made by the State Legislature in
\nthe exercise  of its  exclusive legislative competence under
\nEntry 32 of the State Legislative List.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t was   contended  for\tthe  petitioners   that\t the
\nlegislature has\t no authority  to repeal  statutes which  it
\ncould not  directly enact.  The power to repeal or alter the
\nstatute is co-extensive with the power of direct legislation
\nof  a  legislative  body.  In  support\tof  this  contention
\nreliance  was  placed  on  the\tPrivy  Council\tdecision  in
\nAttorney General  for Ontario  v. Attorney  General for\t the
\nDominion(1). The  Parliament has  no competence to enact the
\nWest Bengal Act<\/a>, and therefore it had no power to repeal the
\nprovisions of  the West\t Bengal Act<\/a>  by\t the  impugned\tAct.
\nInasmuch as  the Parliament has sought to repeal or override
\ncertain\t provisions   of  the  West  Bengal  Act<\/a>  which\t are
\nreferable to Entry 32 in List II, and are exclusively within
\nthe competence of the State Legislature, the impugned Act by
\nParliament is without legislative competence and hence void.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  further contended\tfor the petitioners that the
\nproper approach\t to the\t question is  to see if the impugned
\nlegislation is\tcovered by  any of the entries in list II of
\nthe Seventh  Schedule. It  is not  at all necessary to probe
\ninto the question as to whether the impugned legislation can
\nbe covered  by any  of the  entries of List I or List III of
\nthe Seventh  Schedule. Reliance\t was placed  on the Union of
\nIndia v.  H.S. Dhillon<\/a>(2)  wherein the following proposition
\nwas laid down :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It seems  to us that the best way of dealing with
\n     the question  of the  validity of\tthe impugned Act and
\n     with the contentions of the parties is to ask ourselves
\n     two questions,  first, is\tthe impugned Act legislation
\n     with respect  to entry 49 List II ? and secondly, if it
\n     is not,  it is  beyond the\t legislative  competence  of
\n     Parliament ?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The positive  case\t of  the  petitioners  is  that\t the
\nsubject matter\tof the\timpugned Act is covered by entry 32,
\nList II\t of the\t Seventh Schedule. The Solicitor General for
\nthe Union of India, however, tried to bring the impugned Act
\nwithin the  four corners  of item  44, List I of the Seventh
\nSchedule of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     It may  be pointed\t out at\t the very  outset  that\t the
\nfunction of  the Lists\tis not to confer powers. They merely
\ndemarcate the
\n767<\/span>
\nlegislative fields.  The entries in the three Lists are only
\nlegislative heads  or fields of legislation and the power to
\nlegislate is  given to\tappropriate legislature\t by Articles
\n245 and\t 248 of the Constitution. It would be appropriate at
\nthis stage to read entry 32, List II and entry 44, List I of
\nthe Seventh Schedule :\n<\/p>\n
     Entry 32, List II
\n\t  “Incorporation,  regulation\tand  winding  up  of
\n     corporations, other than those specified in List I, and
\n     universities  ;   unincorporated\ttrading,   literary,
\n     scientific,   religious   and   other   societies\t and
\n     associations; co-operative societies.”
\n     Entry 44, List I:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “Incorporation,  regulation\tand  winding  up  of
\n     corporations, whether  trading or not, with objects not
\n     confined to one State, but not including universities.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     For the  petitioners, however,  it was  urged that\t the
\nregistration of\t the Society  under the West Bengal Act<\/a> does
\nnot make  it a\tcorporation. Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd
\nEdn., Vol. 9, p. 4, deals with corporations in the following
\nterms:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “A corporation  aggregate has\t been defined  as  a
\n     collection of  individuals united into one body under a
\n     special denomination, having perpetual succession under
\n     an artificial form, and vested by the policy of the law
\n     with the  capacity of  acting in several respects as an
\n     individual,  particularly\t of  taking   and   granting
\n     property, of  contracting obligations  and of suing and
\n     being sued,  of enjoying  privileges and  immunities in
\n     common,  and  of  exercising  a  variety  of  political
\n     rights, more or less extensive, according to the design
\n     of the  institution or  the powers\t conferred upon\t it,
\n     either at the time of the creation or at any subsequent
\n     period of its existence.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A\tcorporation   has,  therefore,\tonly  one  capacity,
\nnamely, the  corporate capacity.  On an\t analysis  it  would
\nappear that the essential elements in the legal concept of a
\ncorporation  are:  (1)\ta  continuous  identity,  i.e.,\t the
\noriginal member\t or members  or his  or their successors are
\none, (2)  the persons  to be  incorporated, (3)\t the name by
\nwhich the persons are incorporated, (4) a place, and
\n768<\/span>
\n(5) words  sufficient in  law to  show incorporation. In law
\nthe individual\tincorporators are  members of  which  it  is
\ncomposed or  something wholly different from the corporation
\nitself, for  a corporation is a legal person just as much as
\nan individual.\tA corporation aggregate can express its will
\nby deed under a common seal.\n<\/p>\n
     The Society  was registered,  as stated  earlier, under
\nthe Societies Registration Act<\/a> and later on was deemed to be
\nregistered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act,
\n1961. Whether  such a registered society can be held to be a
\ncorporation in\tthe light  of the functions of a corporation
\nquoted above ? In the Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani
\nTibia College  v. The State of Delhi and Ors<\/a>.(1) it was held
\nthat a\tsociety registered  under the Societies Registration
\nAct<\/a> may have the characteristics which are analogous to some
\nof the\tcharacteristics\t of  a\tcorporation  but  is  not  a
\ncorporation. As\t it  is\t not  incorporated  and\t remains  an
\nunincorporated society,\t therefore, it\tmust come  under the
\nsecond part  of entry  32 of List II. Reliance was placed in
\nthis case  on Taff  Vale Railway  v. Amalgamated  Society of
\nServants.(2) The  petitioners also rely on Katra Educational
\nSociety v.  State of  Uttar Pradesh and Ors<\/a>.(3) In that case
\nalso the  appellant  was  a  society  registered  under\t the
\nSocieties Registration\tAct<\/a> 21\tof 1860,  which conducts  an
\neducational  institution   styled   ‘Dwarka   Prasad   Girls
\nIntermediate College’  at Allahabad.  The management  of the
\naffairs of  the society\t was entrusted\tby the memorandum of
\nassociation to\tan executive  committee whose membership was
\nconfined to  the members  of the  society. The\tIntermediate
\nEducation  Act\t was  subsequently   passed  by\t  the  State
\nLegislature. Section  8<\/a> of  the\t Act  authorised  the  State
\nGovernment to  promulgate regulations  in respect of matters
\ncovered by  sections 16A<\/a>  to 161<\/a>  of the  Act. The  Regional
\nInspector of Girls Schools called upon the society to submit
\nand  get   approved  a\t scheme\t of  administration  of\t the
\ninstitution managed  by\t it.  The  sections  were  later  on
\nmodified by subsequent amendment. The society challenged the
\nAct on\tthe  ground  that  it  was  beyond  the\t legislative
\ncompetence of the State legislature inasmuch as in substance
\nit sought  to substitute  the provisions  of  the  Societies
\nRegistration Act<\/a>,  1860, a  field of  legislation which\t was
\nexclusively within  the competence  of Parliament and in any
\ncase the  Act in  so far  as it\t affected the  powers of the
\ntrustees of charitable institutions
\n769<\/span>
\ncould not  be enacted without conforming to the requirements
\nof Article  254.<\/a> The contention was repelled and it was held
\nby this\t Court, relying\t on the Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic
\nand Unani  Tibia College  v. The State of Delhi<\/a> (supra) that
\nby registration\t under\tthe  Societies\tRegistration  Act<\/a>  a
\nsociety does not acquire corporate status. It cannot also be
\nsaid that  the pith  and substance  of the  Act\t relates  to
\ncharities  or\tcharitable  institutions  or  to  trusts  or
\ntrustees. It  was further  held that  the  true\t nature\t and
\ncharacter of  the Act  falls within  the express legislative
\npower conferred by entry 11 of List II and merely because it
\nincidentally  trenches\t upon  or   affects   a\t  charitable
\ninstitution  or\t  the  powers\tof  the\t  trustees  of\t the
\ninstitution, it\t will not  on that  account  be\t beyond\t the
\nlegislative authority of the State Legislature.\n<\/p>\n
     As the  Society is\t an unincorporated society, says the
\ncounsel for  petitioners, the  impugned\t Act  does  not\t and
\ncannot fall under entry 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule
\nand it\twould fall  under entry 32 of List II of the Seventh
\nSchedule and  once it  is covered by entry 32 of List II, it
\nis not\tat all necessary to examine whether it may or it may
\nnot fall in other two lists of the schedule.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  other hand,  the stand of the Union of India as
\nwell as\t of the interveners, is that the first part of entry
\n32 of  List II is not attracted as the subject matter of the
\nimpugned Act  is not incorporation, regulation or winding up
\nof a  corporation. It  has only taken over the management of
\nAuroville from\tthe Society for a short period in respect of
\nthe property.  Auroville, of  which the\t management has been
\ntaken over  by the Central Government under the impugned Act
\nmeans so  much\tof  the\t undertaking  as  form\tpart  of  or
\nrelatable  to  the  cultural  township\twhich  is  known  as
\nAuroville and  the charter  of which  was proclaimed  by the
\nMother on  25th day  of\t February,  1968.  The\tproperty  of
\nAuroville is  situated not in West Bengal but in Pondicherry
\nin  Tamil  Nadu.  The  fact  that  the\tSociety,  which\t was
\nregistered under  the West Bengal Act<\/a>, has been a channel of
\nfunds for  the\tsetting\t up  of\t the  cultural\ttownship  of
\nAuroville and  has been\t managing some aspects of Auroville,
\ndoes not bring Auroville under the domain of the West Bengal
\nAct<\/a>. The  right\t of  management\t of  property  is  itself  a
\nproperty right.\n<\/p>\n
     The Solicitor  General also  tried to bring the subject
\nmatter of  the\timpugned  legislation  under  various  other
\nentries of  List I or List III of the Seventh Schedule viz.,
\nentries 10,  20, 41  and 42 of List III and entry 10 of List
\nI. But it is not necessary for us to examine
\n770<\/span>
\nwhether the subject matter of the impugned legislation falls
\nunder any  of the  entries of  List I or List III if once we
\nhold that  the subject matter does not fall within the ambit
\nof any of the entries of List II. Even if the subject matter
\nof the\timpugned legislation  is not covered by any specific
\nentry of  List I  or List  III, it  will be  covered by\t the
\nresiduary entry 97 of List I.\n<\/p>\n
     In our  opinion the impugned Act even incidentally does
\nnot trench  upon the field covered by the West Bengal Act<\/a> as
\nit is  in no  way related  to constitution,  regulation\t and
\nwinding up  of the Society In R.C. Cooper v. Union(1) it was
\nlaid  down  that  a  law  relating  to\tthe  business  of  a
\ncorporation is\tnot a  law with\t respect to  regulation of a
\ncorporation.\n<\/p>\n
     Having  heard   the  counsel   for\t the   parties,\t our
\nconsidered  opinion  is\t that  the  subject  matter  of\t the
\nimpugned Act  is not  covered by  entry 32 of List II of the
\nSeventh Schedule. Even if the subject matter of the impugned
\nAct is not covered by any specific entry of List I or III of
\nthe Seventh  Schedule of  the Constitution  it would  in any
\ncase be\t covered by  the residuary  entry 97  of List I. The
\nParliament, therefore,\thad the\t legislative  competence  to
\nenact the impugned Act.\n<\/p>\n
     This leads\t us to\tthe second ground of attack, namely,
\nthe impugned  Act is violative of Articles 25, 26, 29 and 30
\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     Article 25(1)<\/a>  confers freedom  of conscience  and\t the
\nright freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. Of
\ncourse, this  right is subject to public order, morality and
\nhealth and  to\tthe  other  Articles  of  Part\tIII  of\t the
\nConstitution.  Sub-clause  (2)\tof  this  Article,  however,
\nprovides that  nothing in  this\t Article  shall\t affect\t the
\noperation of  any existing  law or  prevent the\t State\tfrom
\nmaking any law-\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  regulating or restricting any economic, financial,
\n\t  political or\tother secular  activity which may be
\n\t  associated with religious practice;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  providing for\t social welfare\t and reform  or\t the
\n\t  throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a
\n\t  public character  to all  classes and\t sections of
\n\t  Hindus.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
771<\/span><\/p>\n
     Article 26<\/a>\t confers on  every religious denomination or
\nany section  thereof, subject  to public order, morality and
\nhealth, the right-\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  to   establish  and\tmaintain  institutions\t for
\n\t  religious and charitable purposes;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  to own and acquire movable and immovable property;
\n\t  and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)   to administer  such property\t in accordance\twith
\n\t  law.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In order  to appreciate the contentions of the parties,
\nit is  necessary  to  know  the\t implication  of  the  words
\n‘religion’ and ‘religious denomination’. The word ‘religion’
\nhas not\t been defined in the Constitution and indeed it is a
\nterm which is hardly susceptible of any rigid definition. In
\nreply  to   a  question\t on  Dharma  by\t Yaksha,  Dharmaraja
\nYudhisthira said thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  tarko pratisth,srutyo vibhinna
\n\t  neko risiyasya matan pramanam
\n\t  dharmaya tatwan nihitan guhayan
\n\t  mahajano jein gatah sa pantha
\n\t  Mahabharta-Aranyakaparvan 313.117.
\n      (Formal logic is vascillating. Srutis are\t  contradict
\n     ory. There\t is no\tsingle rishi whose opinion is final.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The principle  of Dharma  is hidden in a cave. The path
\n     of the virtuous persons is the only proper course.)
\n     The expression  ‘Religion’ has, however, been sought to
\nbe defined in the ‘Words and Phrases’, Permanent Edn., 36 A,
\np. 461 onwards, as given below:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Religion is\tmorality, with a sanction drawn from
\n     a future state of rewards and punishments.
\n\t  The term  ‘religion’ and  ‘religious’ in  ordinary
\n     usage are not rigid concepts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
772<\/span><\/p>\n
     ‘Religion’\t has   reference  to   one’s  views  of\t his
\nrelations to  his Creator and to the obligations they impose
\nof re-verence  for his being and character, and of obedience
\nto his will.\n<\/p>\n
     The  word\t ‘religion’  in\t  the  primary\tsense  (from
\n‘religare, to  rebind-bind back),  imports,  as\t applied  to
\nmoral questions,  only a  recognition of a conscious duty to
\nobey restraining  principles of\t conduct. Tn  such sense  we
\nsuppose there  is no  one who  will admit that he is without
\nreligion.\n<\/p>\n
     ‘Religion’ is bond uniting man to God, and virtue whose
\npurpose is  to render  God worship  due him as source of all
\nbeing and principle of all government of things.\n<\/p>\n
     ‘Religion’ has reference to man’s relation to divinity;
\nto the\tmoral obligation of reverence and worship, obedience
\nand submission, It is the recognition of God as as object of
\nworship, love  and obedience;  right feeling  toward God, as
\nhighly apprehended.\n<\/p>\n
     ‘Religion’ means the services and adoration of God or a
\ngod as\texpressed in  forms  of\t worship;  an  apprehension,
\nawareness, or  conviction of  the  existence  of  a  Supreme
\nBeing; any  system of  faith, doctrine\tand worship,  as the
\nChristian  religion,   the  religions\tof  the\t  orient;  a
\nparticular system of faith or worship.\n<\/p>\n
     The term  ‘religion’ as  used  in\ttax  exemption\tlaw,
\nsimply includes:  (I) a belief, not necessarily referring to
\nsupernatural powers;  (2) a  cult,  involving  a  gregarious
\nassociation openly  expressing the  belief; (3)\t a system of
\nmoral practice\tdirectly resulting  from an adherence to the
\nbelief; and  (4) an organization within the cult designed to
\nobserve the  tenets or\tbelief, the  content of\t such belief
\nbeing of no moment.\n<\/p>\n
     While ‘religion’  in its  broadest sense  includes\t all
\nforms of  belief in the existence of superior beings capable
\nof  exercising\tpower  over  the  human\t race,\tas  commonly
\naccepted it  means the formal recognition of God, as members
\nof societies  and associations,\t and the  term, “a religious
\npurpose’, as  used in the constitutional provision exempting
\nfrom taxation property used for religious purposes, means
\n773<\/span>
\n     the use  of property  by a religious society or body of
\n     persons as a place for public worship.\n<\/p>\n
\t  ‘Religion’ is\t squaring human life with superhuman
\n     life.  Belief   in\t a  superhuman\tpower  and  such  an
\n     adjustment of  human activities  to the requirements of
\n     that power\t as may\t enable the  individual believer  to
\n     exist more\t happily is  com mon to all ‘religions’. The
\n     term ‘religion’  has reference  to one’s  views on\t his
\n     relations to  his creator,\t and to the obligations they
\n     impose of\treverence for  his being  and character\t and
\n     obdience to his will.\n<\/p>\n
\t  The term  ‘religion’ has  reference to one’s views
\n     of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations
\n     they impose  of reverence\tfor his being and character,
\n     and of  obedience to  his will. With man’s relations to
\n     his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose,
\n     and the  manner in which an expression shall be made by
\n     him of  his belief\t on those  subjects, no interference
\n     can be  permitted, provided always the laws of society,
\n     designed to  secure its  peace and\t prosperity, and the
\n     morals of its people, are not interfered with.”
\n     These terms have also been judicially considered in The
\nCommissioner, Hindu  Religious\tEndowments,  Madras  v.\t Sri
\nLakshmindra Thirtha  Swamiar of\t Sri Shirur MUtt<\/a>(1) where in
\nthe following proposition of law have been laid down:\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  Religion means  “a system  of beliefs or doctrines
\n\t  which are  regarded  by  those  who  profess\tthat
\n\t  religion as  conducive to  their  spiritual  well-
\n\t  being”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  A religion  is not  merely an opinion, doctrine or
\n\t  belief. It  has its  outward expression in acts as
\n\t  well.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)  Religion need not be theistic.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4)  “Religious denomination” means a religious sect or
\n\t  body having  a common\t faith and  organisation and
\n\t  designated by a distinctive name.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (5)  A   law   which   takes   away   the\t rights\t  of
\n\t  administration  from\tthe  hands  of\ta  religious
\n\t  denomination altogether
\n774<\/span>
\n\t  and vests  in another\t authority would  amount  to
\n\t  violation of the right guaranteed under clause (d)
\n\t  of Art. 26.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  aforesaid   propositions  have  been\tconsistently
\nfollowed in  later cases  including  The  Durgah  Committee,
\nAjmer &\t Anr. v.  Syed Hussain\tAli  &\tOrs<\/a>(1)\tand  can  be
\nregarded as well settled.\n<\/p>\n
     The words “religious denomination” in Article 26<\/a> of the
\nConstitution must take their colour from the word ‘religion’
\nand if\tthis be\t so, the expression “religious denomination”
\nmust also satisfy three conditions:\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  It must  be a collection of individuals who have a
\n\t  system of  beliefs or\t doctrines which they regard
\n\t  as conducive\tto their  spiritual well-being, that
\n\t  is, a common faith;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  common organisation; and
\n     (3)  designation by a distinctive name.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In view  of the  propositions laid down by the Court in
\nthe  aforesaid\t reported  cases  we  have  to\texamine\t the
\nteachings of  Sri Aurobindo to see whether they constitute a
\nreligion. It  will be appropriate at this stage to succintly
\ndeal with the teaching of Sri Aurobindo.\n<\/p>\n
     According\tto   Sri  Aurobindo   there  is\t  a   divine
\nconsciousness pervading\t the whole  universe. A\t portion  of
\nthis consciousness  by\ta  process.  Of\t involution  through
\nvarious planes\thas finally resulted in the formation of the
\nphysical world, namely the stars, the planets, the earth and
\nso on. Then came the reverse process of evolution i e., from
\nstone to  plant, from plant to animal, from animal to man or
\nin other words from matter to life, from life to mind and so
\non. This  evolution will  not stop  with man  who is  only a
\ntransitional  species.\t The  evolution\t  would\t go  further
\ntransforming man  into superman and the mind into supermind.
\nThe superman  according to  Sri Aurobindo  would be  totally
\ndifferent from man as man from animal and animal from plant.
\nIn  this   transformation  back\t  to  all  prevading  divine
\nconsciousness in  which man would become superman, man would
\nlose his present character of body, vital and mind. His body
\nwould become a body of light, his vital a vital of light and
\nhis mind a mind of light.\n<\/p>\n
775<\/span><\/p>\n
     This transformation,  or evolution of man into superman
\nis A  bound to\ttake place but in the course of thousands of
\nyears. This process, however, according to Sri Aurobindo can
\nbe accelerated\tby the practice of integral yoga. His theory
\nof this transformation consists of two aspects:\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  An  inner  ascent  of\t the  consciousness  to\t the
\n\t  Divine.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  A descent  of Divine\tconsciousness in  the  mind,
\n\t  vital and body.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The distinctive feature of Sri Aurobindo’s yoga is that
\nit is universal. Any one born in any part of the world, born
\nof parents  professing any  religion can accept his yoga. In
\nshort, he  originated the  philosophy  of  cosmic  salvation
\nthrough spiritual  evolution.  Divine  existence  that\twill
\nappear through\tthe development\t of the\t agnostic  man\twill
\nusher into  a transcendental  spiritual age in which man and
\nuniverse are destined to become divine. D
\n     Thus, according  to Sri  Aurobindo’s theory  of  cosmic
\nsalvation the  paths of\t union\twith  Brahman  are  two\t way
\nstreets or  channels. Enlightenment  comes to man from above
\nwhile the  spiritual mind (supermind) of man strives through
\nyogic illumination  to reach  upwards from below. When these
\ntwo forces  blend in  an individual agnostic man is created.
\nThis yogic illumination transcends both reason and intuition
\nand eventually\tleads to  the freeing of the individual from
\nthe hands  of individuality and by exclusion of all mankind,
\nwill eventually\t achieve Mukti\tor liberation. Sri Aurobindo
\ncreated\t a   dialectic\tmode   of  salvation  not  only\t for
\nindividual but\tfor  all  mankind.  Energy  or\tSachidananda
\n(existence, consciousness and joy) comes down from Brahma to
\nmeet energy  from the  supermind  of  man  striving  upwards
\ntowards his  spirituality (antithesis)\tand melts  in man to
\ncreate a  new spiritual\t superman  (synthesis).\t From  these
\ndivine beings a divine universe is also evolved.\n<\/p>\n
     The Divine,  though one,  has two aspects-one is static
\nand the other dynamic. The dynamic side of the Divine is the
\nenergy or  the creative\t side. People  in the  past realised
\nonly the  static aspect\t of the Divine and did not know much
\nof the\tdynamic side as it is much more difficult to realise
\nit. For\t this reason,  the purpose  of the  creation was not
\nunderstood by  them and they declared the world to be futile
\nand deceptive.\tThat means  either the\tDivine was unable to
\nmake a\tperfect world  and He had Do purpose in the creation
\nor
\n776<\/span>
\nman  has   not\tbeen   able  to\t understand  the  same.\t Sri
\nAurobindo’s yoga  gives the  full  experience  of  both\t the
\naspects of  the Divine,\t that is  why he  calls his Yoga the
\nIntegral Yoga  or the  Perfect Yoga.  Sri Aurobindo says the
\nDivine is  real and His creation is bound to be real. He has
\nshown to  the world  the purpose  of the  creation  and\t has
\ndeclared that  the world  is still in an imperfect condition
\npassing\t through   the\t transitory   Period   towards\t its
\nperfection.\n<\/p>\n
     Man is a creature of this world and he cannot know much
\nof things other than this world. He has, however, a capacity
\nin himself to develop to the next stage of evolution because
\nNature cannot  stop with  imperfect results  and the present
\nhumanity must  evolve further  till the\t final perfection is
\nobtained.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t look  at  things  and\thappenings  from  the  oufer
\nsurface, having\t no knowledge  whatsoever of the real causes
\nand effects,  the different  forces and\t influences  of\t the
\nsubtle worlds  working behind them. We can see and feel only
\nthe results  on the  material plane  and nothing  more.\t Our
\nsenses have  a very  limited scope  and they can give us the
\nknowledge of  the things  which can only materialise. But in
\nfact that  is not  all that  we are. We have another part in
\nourselves which\t is veiled by the external consciousness and
\nwe call that as our soul-the spark of divinity within; which
\nis one everywhere-the true self.\n<\/p>\n
     As our  sense give\t us the\t knowledge of  the  external
\nthings by directing our consciousness outwardly, in the same
\nway if\twe can\tdirect our  consciousness inwardly  and rise
\ninto the  inner consciousness, we can know the things of the
\nhigher worlds  and go  beyond the limitation of our physical
\nsense, then  only can  we have\tthe true  knowledge of\tthis
\nworld and  the worlds  beyond and  that practice  is  called
\n‘Yoga’.\n<\/p>\n
     The meaning  of the  word. ‘Yoga’\tis to  join-join our
\nexternal consciousness with our true self.\n<\/p>\n
     According to  Sri Aurobindo, humanity is under the sway
\nof dark and ignorant forces and that is the reason for human
\nsufferings, disease and death-all the signs of imperfection.
\nIt is  clear that  man has to progress towards a Light which
\nbrings knowledge,  power, happiness!  love, beauty  and even
\nphysical immortality. The Divine is the essence of the whole
\nuniverse and  to realise  and  possess\tHim  should  be\t the
\nsupreme aim  of human  life. To acquire all the qualities of
\nthe Divine is the final purpose of Nature’s evolution.\n<\/p>\n
777<\/span><\/p>\n
The soul  progresses by gathering experience in the ordinary
\nlife but  A it is a very long, slow and devious process from
\nbirth to  birth. Yoga  hastens the  soul’s development.\t The
\nprogress that  can be  made in\tany lives  is made  in a few
\nyears by  the help  of Yoga.  The Yoga\tof Sri\tAurobindo is
\ncalled the  ‘Integral Yoga’  or the  ‘Supermental Yoga’. The
\nYogas of  the past  were only  of ascent  to the Spirit. Sri
\nAurobindo’s Yoga  is both  of ascent  and descent.  One\t can
\nrealise the  Divine in\tconsciousness by  the old  Yogas but
\ncannot establish the Divine on earth in a collective no less
\nthan in\t an individual\tphysical life.\tIn the old Yogas the
\nworld was  considered either  an illusion  or a transitional
\nphase: it  had no  prospect of\thaving all  the terms of its
\nexistence fulfilled.  Sri Aurobindo  on the  other hand says
\nthat the  world is a real creation of the Divine and life in
\nit can be completely divinised down to the very cells of the
\nbody. The  kingdom of  God on  earth can be brought about in
\nthe  most   literal  sense  by\ta  total  transformation  of
\ncollective man. To put it in Sri Aurobindo’s words:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Here and  not elsewhere  the highest God head has
\n     to be  found, the soul’s divine nature developed out of
\n     the imperfect  physical human  nature and through unity
\n     with God  and man and universe the whole large truth of
\n     being discovered  and lived and made visibly wonderful.
\n     That completes  the long  cycle  of  our  becoming\t and
\n     admits us\tto a  supreme result;  that  is\t opportunity
\n     given to  the soul by the human birth and until that is
\n     accomplished, it can not cease.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
For this  transformation a  new power called the ‘supermind’
\nwhich was sealed to this earth till now is needed, F
\n     Shri Soli\tSorabjee, for the petitioners, bas contended
\nthat the  followers of\tSri Aurobindo  satisfy the aforesaid
\nthree conditions and, therefore, they constitute a religious
\ndenomination.\tStrong\t  reliance   was   placed   on\t The
\nCommissioner,  Hindu   Religious   Endowments,\t Madras\t  v.
\nLakshmindra Thirtha  Swamiar of\t Sri Shitur Mutt<\/a> (supra). In
\nthat case  the followers  of Rarnanuja,\t the fol  lowers  of
\nMadhwacharya and  the followers\t of other religious teachers
\nwere held  to be the religious denomination. On the strength
\nof this\t case it was contended that Sri Aurobindo was also a
\nreligious teacher  and, therefore,  there is  no  reason  on
\nprinciple which compels the conclusion that the followers of
\nAurobindo who share common faith and organisation and have a
\ndistinctive name do not constitute a
\n778<\/span>
\nreligious denomination.\t A similar  view was  taken in Nalam
\nRamalingayya v.\t The Commissioner  of Charitable  and  Hindu
\nReligious Institutions and Endowments, Hyderabad(1). Dealing
\nwith the  expression ‘religious\t denomination’,\t a  Division
\nBench of  the Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  relying  on\t Sri
\nLakshmindra’s case (supra) observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “To\thold   that   there   exists   a   religious
\n     denomination, there  must exist  a religious  sect or a
\n     body  having   a  common  faith  and  organisation\t and
\n     designated by  a distinctive name . Of course, any sect
\n     or sub. sect professing certain religious cult having a
\n     common faith and common spiritual organisation, such as
\n     Vaishnavites, Madhvites,  Saivites\t may  be  termed  as
\n     religious denomination  but L  certainly not any caste,
\n     sub-caste or sect of Hindu religion, who worship mainly
\n     a particular deity or god.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It was  further contended that the words “religion’ and
\n‘religious  denomination’  must\t not  be  construed  in\t the
\nnarrow, restrictive  and orthodox  or traditional  sense but
\nmust be given a broad meaning.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t may   be  observed   that  in\t the  case   of\t The
\nCommissioner,  Hindu   Religious   Endowments,\t Madras\t  v.
\nLakshmindra Thirtha  Swamiar  of  Sri  Shirur  Mutt<\/a>  (supra)
\ndifferent sects and sub. sects of the Hindu religion founded
\nby  various  religious\tteachers  were\tcalled\ta  religious
\ndenomination on\t the ground  that they\tbeing part  of Hindu
\nreligion  would\t  also\tbe   designated\t  as   a   religious
\ndenomination if\t the followers of Hindu religion constituted
\na religious  denomination as  the part must bear the impress
\nof the\twhole. This  observation was  in this  content.\t The
\nother case  taking a similar view viz. Nalam Ramalingayya v.
\nThe  Commissioner   of\tCharitable   and   Hindu   Religious
\nInstitutions and Endowments, Hyderabad (supra) is also based
\non the same ground.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  petitioners it  was further submitted that Sri
\nAurobindo and  the Mother  were\t adverse  to  ‘religion’  as
\n‘Religiosity” and  “Religionism” but not lo “True Religion”.
\nReference was  made to various writings of Sri Aurobindo and
\nthe Mother:\n<\/p>\n
Sri Aurobindo
\n\t  “In order  to exceed our Nature and become divine,
\n     we must  first get\t God, for we are the lower imperfect
\n     term of
\n779<\/span>
\n     Our being. He is its higher perfect term, The finite to
\n     A become  infinite, must know, have and touch infinity;
\n     the symbol\t being in  order to  become its own reality,
\n     must  know,   love\t and  preceive\tthat  Reality.\tThis
\n     necessarily  is   the   imperative\t  justification\t  of
\n     religion; not  of a  church, creed\t or theology-for all
\n     these things  are religiosity,  not  religion-but\tthat
\n     personal and intimate religious temper and spirit which
\n     moves men to worship, to aspire to or to pant after his
\n     own idea of the supreme.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(SABCV 17, p. 54-55)
\n\t  “It is true in a sense that Religion should be the
\ndominant thing\tin life.. When it identifies with a creed or
\ncult or\t system of  ceremonial acts  it may  well  become  a
\nretarding force There are two aspects of religion. Spiritual
\nReligion  and\tReligionism.  True   Religion  is  spiritual
\nReligion, which\t seeks to live in spirit in what is . beyond
\nthe intellect..\t Religionism on\t the other  hand  entrenches
\nitself in  some narrow\tpietistic exaltation  of  the  lower
\nmembers. It  lays exclusive  stress on\tintellectual dogmas,
\nforms and ceremonies .\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t      (SABCV 15, p. 166-67)
\nThe Mother
\n\t  “We give  the name  of religion  to any concept of
\n     the world\tor the\tuniverse which\tis presented  as the
\n     exclusive Truth  in which\tone must  have\tan  absolute
\n     faith, generally  because this  Truth is declared to be
\n     the result of a revelation.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Most religions  affirm the  existence of a God and
\nthe rules  to be  followed to  obey him,  but there are some
\nGodless religions,  such  as  socio-political  organisations
\nwhich, in  the name of an Ideal or the State, claim the same
\nright to be obeyed
\n\t\t\t\t     (MCV No. 13, p. 212-13)
\n\t  “The\tfirst\tand  principal\t article  of   these
\n     established and  formal religions\truns always “Mine is
\n     the  supreme,   the  only\ttruth,\tall  others  are  in
\n     falsehood or  inferior.” For  without this\t fundamental
\n     dogma, established religions could not have existed. If
\n     you do not believe and. proclaim that you
\n780<\/span>
\n     alone possess  the one  or the  highest truth, you will
\n     not be  able to  impress people  and make them flock to
\n     you.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t  (MCV No. 3, p. 77)
\n\t  “He who  has a  spiritual  experience\t and  faith,
\n     formulates\t it   in  the  most  appropriate  words\t for
\n     himself. But if he is convinced that this expression is
\n     the only  correct and  true one for this experience and
\n     faith, he\tbecomes\t dogmatic  and\ttends  to  create  a
\n     religion.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t (MCV No. 13. p. 22)
\n\t  “Imagine someone  who, in  some way  or other\t has
\n     heard of  something like  the Divine  or has a personal
\n     feeling that  something of\t the kind exists, and begins
\n     to make  all sorts\t of efforts,  efforts  of  will,  of
\n     discipline, efforts  of  concentration,  all  sorts  of
\n     efforts to find this Divine, to discover what he is, to
\n     become acquainted\twith Him  and unite  with Him.\tThen
\n     this person is doing Yoga. Now if this person has noted
\n     down all  the processes  he has  used and\tconstructs a
\n     fixed system, and sets up all that he has discovered is
\n     absolute laws-for\texample he  says, the Divine is like
\n     this, to  find the\t Divine you  must do this, make this
\n     particular gesture,  take this  attitude, perform\tthis
\n     ceremony and you must admit that this is the truth, you
\n     must say  “I accept  that this is the Truth and I fully
\n     adhere to\tit; and\t your method  is the only right one,
\n     the only  one which  exists”- if  all that\t is  written
\n     down,  organised\tarranged   into\t  fixed\t  laws\t and
\n     ceremonies, it becomes a religion.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t (MCV No. 8, p. 147)
\nSri Aurobindo
\n\t  “You express\tyour faith  in\tSri  Aurobindo\twith
\n     certain words, which are for you the best expression of
\n     this faith;  this is  quite all  right. But  if you are
\n     convinced that  these very\t words are  the only correct
\n     ones to  express what Sri Aurobindo is, then you become
\n     dogmatic and are ready to create a religion.”
\n\t\t\t  (Sri Aurobindo Circle 21 No. 1965)
\n\t  “That is  why religions always blunder, always for
\n     they  want\t  to  standardise   the\t expression   of  an
\n     experience and  impose it\ton  all\t as  an\t irrefutable
\n     truth. The experience was
\n781<\/span>
\n     true, complete  in itself,\t convincing-for him  who had
\n     it. A  The formulae  he has made of it is excellent-for
\n     him; but  to want\tto impose  it on  others is  a gross
\n     error which  bas altogether  disasterous  consequences-
\n     always and\t which always  takes away, far away from the
\n     Truth.”\n<\/p>\n
\t  “That is  why all religions, however fine they may
\n     be have  always led  men to  the  worst  excesses.\t All
\n     crimes, all  horrors that\thave been prepetrated in the
\n     name of  religion are  among the darkest spots in human
\n     history.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t      (Bulletin No. 1968, p. 129 31)
\n\t  “You see,  this is  what  I  have  learned  :\t the
\n     failure of\t the religions.\t It  is\t because  they\twere
\n     divided. They  wanted people  to be  religious  to\t the
\n     exclusion of  the other  religious.. And  what the\t new
\n     consciousness wants  is: no more divisions. to find the
\n     meeting point.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t     (MCV No. 13, p. 293-94)
\n\t  “There is  no word so plastic and uncertain in its
\n     meaning as the word religion. The word is European and,
\n     therefore, it  is\tas  well  to  know  first  what\t the
\n     Europeans mean  by it.  In this  matter we\t find them..
\n     divided in opinion. Sometimes they use it as equivalent
\n     to\t a  set\t of  beliefs,  sometimes  as  equivalent  to
\n     morality coupled  with a  belief in  God, sometimes  as
\n     equivalent to  a set of pietistic actions and emotions.
\n     Faith, works and pious observances, these are the three
\n     recognised elements of European religion…
\n\t  Religion in India is a still more plastic term and
\n     may  mean\t anything  from\t  the  heights\tof  Yoga  to
\n     strangling your  fellowman and  relieving\thim  of\t the
\n     wordly goods  he may happen to be carrying with him. It
\n     would, therefore, take too long to enumerate everything
\n     that can be included in Indian religion.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    -Sri Aurobindo (Glossary of Terms in Sri
\n\t\t\t      Aurobindo’s Writings, p. 132)
\n     Emphasis  was   also  laid\t upon  the  opinion  of\t the
\nauthoritative sources  in support of the contention that the
\nteachings of  Sri Aurobindo  constitute a  religion and\t the
\nSociety\t a  religious  denomination.  The  Encyclopaedia  of
\nPhilosophy (1972 ed., Vol. 1, pp.\n<\/p>\n
782<\/span><\/p>\n
208-9) observes:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Sri Aurobindo  was an  Indian  metaphysician\t and
\n     founder of\t a new\treligious movement with headquarters
\n     at Pondichery.  The religious  movement associated with
\n     him has  increased its following in India, and has made
\n     some converts  in the  West……… God must ‘descend’
\n     into human\t experience. This illumination of individual
\n     will   lead   to\tthe   emergence\t  of   a   divinised
\n     community,…Aurobindo  produced  a  synthesis  between
\n     older Indian  religious ideas  and the  world affirming
\n     attitudes of Christian theism.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  Encyclopaedia\t  Brittanica   talking\t about\t Sri
\nAurobindo says:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Sri Aurobindo devoted himself to discover the way
\n     by\t which\tthe  Universe  might  be  made\tdivine…Sri
\n     Aurobindo has  been acclaimed  as the  prophet  of\t the
\n     Superman, as  the hierophant  of the  ‘new age’……He
\n     has called his stand point that of a spiritual religion
\n     of humanity.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Dictionary\tof Comparative\tReligion (1970\ted., p. 117)
\nmentions:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “According to\t Aurobindo, there  is a\t progressive
\n     evolution of  the divine Being through matter no higher
\n     spiritual forms,  and the Aurobindo movement is held to
\n     represent vanguard\t of this evolutionary process in our
\n     own times.\t Aurobindo practised and taught an ‘integral
\n     yoga’ in  which meditative\t and spiritual exercises are
\n     integrated with  physical,\t cultural  and\tintellectual
\n     pursuits.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Encyclopaedia Americana (1966 Vol. 12, p. 634) states:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “He (Sri  Aurobindo) abandoned politics to found a
\n     religious school(1910)  at\t Pondicherry.  A  practising
\n     Yoga  philosopher,\t he  wrote  numerous  spiritual\t and
\n     mystical works.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Gazetteer  of India,  published  by\t the  Government  of
\nIndia, Vol.  1, Country and People, Chapter 8, Religion, pp.
\n413-500, Section on Sri Aurobindo, states:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Sri Aurobindo  gave new  interpretations  of\t the
\n     vedas and the Vedanta. and in his Essays on the Gita he
\n     expoun-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
783<\/span><\/p>\n
     ded what  he called  “the integral\t view of  Life”. His
\n     great A  work, The\t Life Divine, is a summing up of his
\n     philosophy of  “the Descent of the Divine into Matter”.
\n     The importance  of Sri  Aurobindo’s misiion lies in his
\n     attempt to explain the true methods of Yoga.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  Newsweek  (Nov.  20,  1972)  the  International
\nWeekly, its ‘religion’ Editor, Woodward, writes:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The Next  Religion”: Some  students\tof  oriental
\n     thought believe  that Sri\tAurobindo’s spiritual vision
\n     and discipline  may blossom into the first new religion
\n     of global\tscope  since  the  rise\t of  Islam  thirteen
\n     centuries ago .. Sri Aurobindo left behind a nucleus of
\n     disciples in  Pondicherry where  the Master’s  work  is
\n     carried on by 1800 devotees who live in India’s largest
\n     Ashram or spiritual community.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Reference was  also made to the opinions of the philosophers
\nand professors\tof  religion  about  the  teachings  of\t Sri
\nAurobindo.  Frederic   Spiegelberg,  in\t  his  book  ‘Living
\nReligions of  the World’,  p. 190-205,\twrites that  in\t Sri
\nAurobindo:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We pass  beyond specific religions to a synthetic
\n     vision  of\t the  religious\t impulse  itself,  a  vision
\n     designed to embrace all previous and future history all
\n     previous and future paths.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Sri Aurobindo\t is a  man worshipped by hundreds of
\n     thousands and respected by millions.. In his retreat at
\n     Pondicherry he is less the philosopher of Hinduism than
\n     the philosopher  of religion  in general,\tthe voice of
\n     that which comparative religion leaves undisputed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Mr.  Robert   Neil\t Minor,\t  Professor   of   Religion,
\nUniversity of Kansas, writes:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “on the level of Mind, then Aurobindo’s system can
\n     not be  falsified. It  therefore cannot  be verified on
\n     the level\tof Mind.  But as  a religion  it is  a total
\n     package. Aurobindo\t did not  offer a  religious view of
\n     which one\tcould accept and reject parts. He offered an
\n     integral system  based  upon  an  integral\t vision.  He
\n     offered. as well, the vision itself.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (Sri Aurobindo: The Perfect and the Good, 177)
\n784<\/span>
\nAnd, the  opinions of  similar other  professors of religion
\nand philosophers have been quoted to show that the teachings
\nof  Sri\t  Aurobindo  have   been  treated   as\treligion  by
\ntheologians  and   by  professors   and\t by  important\tnews
\nagencies.\n<\/p>\n
     The interpretations  of the  term\t‘religion’  used  in
\ndifferent Acts were also referred to but it is not necessary
\nto refer  to them as we are to interpret the term ‘religion’
\nand ‘religious\tdenomination, with references to Articles 25
\nand 26 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. S.  Rangarajan appearing for the petitioners in one
\nof  the\t other\twrit  petitions\t substantially\tadopted\t the
\ncontentions  raised   by  Mr.\tSoli  Sorabjee\tand  further
\nsupplemented the  same\tby  raising  the  following  points.
\nAccording to him the ingredients of religion are .\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  A spiritual ideal;\n<\/p>\n
     (2)     A\tset  of\t concepts  or  precepts\t on  God-Man
\n\t  relationship underlying the ideal:\n<\/p>\n
     (3)   A methodology  given or evolved by the founder or
\n\t  followers of\tthe religion  to achieve  the ideal;
\n\t  and
\n     (4)   A definite  following of  persons  having  common
\n     faith in the precepts and concepts;\n<\/p>\n
and in\torder to  constitute a\t‘religious denomination’ two
\nfurther ingredients are needed:\n<\/p>\n
     (5)  The followers should have a common organisation;
\n     (6)   They should\tbe designated  and designable  by  a
\n\t  distinct name-This  may usually be the name of the
\n\t  founder himself.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The counsel  contends that the ideal in Sri Aurobindo’s
\nreligion is  a ‘Divine\tLife in a Divine Body’ by Divinising
\nMan and\t by trans  forming his\tmind,  vital  and  physical.
\nAccording to  Sri Aurobindo,  in  the  beginning  the  whole
\nuniverse was  full of all-pervading Divine consciousness. He
\ncalled the dynamic portion of the Divine as ‘Supermind’. The
\nDivine-the Supermind-according\tto him,\t wanted to  see\t its
\nmanifestation even in matter. By a process of involution the
\nDivine. which  is the  subtlest became\tgrosser and  grosser
\ngiving
\n785<\/span>
\nrise to\t various planes\t of consciousness. This was achieved
\nthrough ,  lnvolution-Evolution and Divinisation of Man. The
\nmethodology for\t achieving the ideal was the ‘Integral Yoga’
\nwhich only  means using\t all the methods-Bhakthi, knowledge,
\nwork  meditation,  concentration,  attaining  perfection  to
\nderive optimum\tbenefits of  each  one\tof  them,  by  total
\nsurrender to  the Divine  and by  becoming the instrument of
\nthe Divine.\n<\/p>\n
     Sri  Aurobindo   has  a   definite\t following.  In\t the
\nbeginning, this\t consisted of  a few disciples. Slowly their
\nnumber increased and an Ashram grew. Then there are definite
\norganisations, Ashrams, Sri Aurobindo Society with more than
\n300 centres  the world\tover. The  devotees of Sri Aurobindo
\nare also referred to as Aurobindonians.\n<\/p>\n
     There are\tcertain other attributes which indicate that
\nthe  followers\tof  Sri\t Aurobindo  constitute\ta  religious
\ndenomination, for  example, chanting  of Mantras,  specially
\nprepared by Sri Aurobindo, a particular symbol also used for
\nidentification, place of pilgrimage 1) is the Samadhi of Sri
\nAurobindo and  the Mother,  provision for  meditation at the
\nSamadhi. Flowers are offered at the Samadhi by the devotees.\n<\/p>\n
     The uniqueness  of his  philosophy\t and  his  teachings
\naccording to  Mr. Rangarajan  constitute  religion  and\t the
\nspecial features  in his  philosophy also make the Society a
\nreligious  denomination.   Thus,  all\tthe  ingredients  of
\nreligion and  religious denomination are satisfied and there
\nis no  reason why his teachings be not taken to be religious
\nand the\t institutions viz,  the Society and the Auroville be
\nnot taken  to be a religious denomination within the meaning
\nof Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     The Solicitor-General  for the  Union of  India and Mr.
\nF.S. Nariman,  counsel for the respondents Nos. 6 to 238, on
\nthe other hand contended that the teachings of Sri Aurobindo
\ndo not\tconstitute religion  nor  is  the  Society  and\t the
\nAuroville a religious denomination, and in any case there is
\nno violation  of Article  26<\/a> of the Constitution inasmuch as
\nthe impugned  Act has  taken over  only\t the  management  of
\nAuroville from\tthe Society  and does not interfere with the
\nfreedom\t contemplated\tby  Articles   25  and\t 26  of\t the
\nConstitution. . H
\n     Reference\twas   made  to\trule  9\t of  the  Rules\t and
\nRegulations of
\n786<\/span>
\nSri Aurobindo  Society, which  deals with  membership of the
\nSociety and provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “9. Any  person  or  institution  or\torganisation
\n     either in\tIndia or  abroad who  subscribes to the aims
\n     and objects  of the  Society, and whose application for
\n     member ship  is approved  by the  executive  Committee,
\n     will be  member of\t the Society. The membership is open
\n     to\t people\t  everywhere  without\tany  distinction  of
\n     nationality, religion, caste, creed or sex.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The only condition for membership is that the person seeking
\nthe membership of the Society must subscribe to the aims and
\nobjects of  the Society.  It was  further urged that what is
\nuniversal cannot  be a\treligious denomination.\t In order to
\nconstitute a  separate denomination, there must be something
\ndistinct from  another. A  denomination, argues the counsel,
\nis one\twhich is different from the other and if the Society
\nwas  a\treligious  denomination,  then\tthe  person  seeking
\nadmission  to\tthe  institution  would\t lose  his  previous
\nreligion He  cannot be\ta member of two religions at one and
\nthe same  time. But  this is  not the position in becoming a
\nmember\tof   the  society   and\t  Auroville.   A   religious
\ndenomination  must   necessarily  be   a  new  and  one\t new
\nmethodology must  be provided for a religion. Substantially,
\nthe view  taken by Sri Aurobindo remains a part of the Hindu
\nphilosophy.  There   may  be   certain\tinnovations  in\t his
\nphilosophy but\tthat would  not make  it a  religion on that
\naccount.\n<\/p>\n
     In support\t of  his  contention  the  Solicitor-Gereral
\nplaced reliance\t on Hiralal  Mallick v.\t State of  Bihar<\/a>(l).
\nDealing with meditation this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Modern scientific  studies have validated ancient
\n     vedic   insights\ta   bequeathing\t  to   mankind\t new
\n     meditational, yogic  and other  therapeutics,  at\tonce
\n     secular, empirically  tested  and\ttransreligious.\t The
\n     psychological,    physiological\t and\tsociological
\n     experiments conducted  on the effects of Transcendental
\n     Meditation\t (TM,  for  short)  have  proved  that\tthis
\n     science of\t creative intelligence,\t in its meditational
\n     applications, tranquilizes the tense inside, helps meet
\n     stress\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
—————————-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (1) [19781] SCR 301.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
787<\/span><\/p>\n
     without\tdistress,    overcome\t inactivities\t and
\n     instabilities and\tA by holistic healing normalises the
\n     fevered and fatigued man. Rehabilitation of psychiatric
\n     patients,\t restoration\tof    juvenile\t  offenders,
\n     augmentation  of\tmoral  tone  and  temper  and,\tmore
\n     importantly,  improvement\t of  social   behaviour\t  of
\n     prisoners are  among the  proven  finding\trecorded  by
\n     researchers. Extensive studies of TM in many prisons in
\n     the U.S.A.,  Canada, Germany  and other  countries\t are
\n     reported  to   have   yielded   results   of   improved
\n     creativity, higher responsibility and better behaviour.
\n     Indeed, a\tfew trial  courts in  the United States have
\n     actually prescribed  TM as a recipe for rehabilitation.
\n     As Dr.  M.P. Pali,\t Principal of  the Kasturba  Medical
\n     College, Mangalore, has put down:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “Meditation is a science and this should be learnt
\n     under guidance and cannot be just picked up from books.
\n     Objective studies on the effects of meditation on human
\n     body and  mind is\ta modern  observation and  has\tbeen
\n     studied by\t various  investigation\t at  MEERU-Maharishi
\n     European Research\tUniversity. Its tranquilizing effect
\n     on body  and mind,\t ultimately leading  to the  greater
\n     goal of  Cosmic Consciousness  or universal  awareness,
\n     has been  studied by  using over  a hundred parameters.
\n     Transcendental Meditation\tpractised for  IS minutes in
\n     the morning  and evening  every day brings about a host
\n     of beneficial effects.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     To name only a few:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     1.\t  Body and mind get into a state of deep relaxation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t  B.M.R. drops, loss oxygen is consumed. F\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t   E.E.G.  shows brain\twave coherence\twith ‘alpha’
\n\t  wave preponderance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.\t  Automatic stability increases. G\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.\t  Normalisation of high blood pressure.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.\t  Reduced use of alcohol and tobacco.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.\t   Reduced  stress, hence  decreased plasma cortisol
\n\t  and blood lactate. H\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8.\t  Slowing of the heart etc.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
788<\/span><\/p>\n
     This Court\t dealing with  punishment in a criminal case
\nin Giasuddin v. A . P. State(l ) again observed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “There is  a spiritual dimension to the first page
\n     of\t our  Constitution  which  projects  into  penology.
\n     Indian courts may draw inspiration from Patanjali sutra
\n     even as  they derive  punitive patterns  from the Penal
\n     Code<\/a> (most\t of Indian  meditational therapy is based on
\n     the sutras of Patanjali).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     on the  strength of  these authorities  it is contended
\nfor the\t Union of India that the integral yoga propounded by
\nSri Aurobindo is only a science and not a religion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Society itself treated Auroville not as a religious
\ninstitution. Auroville\tis a  township which  was conceived,
\nplanned and  developed as  a centre of international culture
\nfor the\t promotion of  the ideals  which are  central to the
\nUnited\t Nations   Educational\t Scientific   and   Cultural
\norganisation (UNESCO).\tThese ideals have been explained and
\nproclaimed extensively\tin the writings of Sri Aurobindo and
\nthe Mother. In the year 1966, Sri Aurobindo Society, devoted
\nas it  was to  the teachings  of Sri Aurobindo and guided by
\nthe Mother,  proposed this  cultural township  to UNESCO for
\nthe commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the UNESCO. The
\nUnion of  India took up the matter with UNESCO and it did so
\non the explicit understanding that Auroville as proposed was
\nin full\t consonance  and  conformity  with  India’s  highest
\nideals and aspirations and that would help Auroville promote
\nthe  aims   and\t objects  of  UNESCO.  Accordingly,  at\t the
\nFourteenth Session  of the  General Conference of the UNESCO
\nheld in\t Paris in  1966, a resolution was passed noting that
\nthe proposal  made  by\tSri  Aurobindo\tSociety\t to  set  up
\nAuroville  as  a  cultural  township  where  people  of\t the
\ndifferent countries  will live\ttogether in  harmony in\t one
\ncommunity and  engage in  cultural, educational,  scientific
\nand other  pursuits and\t that the  township  will  represent
\ncultures of  the world\tnot  only  intellectually  but\talso
\npresenting different  schools  of  architecture,  paintings,
\nsoulpture, music etc. as a part of living, bringing together
\nthe  values   and  ideals  of  civilisations  and  cultures,
\ncommended the project to those interested in UNESCO’s ideals
\nas   the   project   would   contribute\t  to   international
\nunderstanding and promotion of peace.\n<\/p>\n
———————-\n<\/p>\n
     (1) [1978] 1 SCR 153 @ 164.\n<\/p>\n
789<\/span><\/p>\n
     The said  resolution of  the UNESCO was followed by two
\nother resolutions-one  at the  15th Session  in 1968 and the
\nother at  the 16th Session in 1970. In the second resolution
\nthe UNESCO  had noted  that the\t Society had  taken steps to
\nestablish Auroville  as an  international cultural  township
\nwhich would  fulfil the\t ideas of  the\tUNESCO.\t The  UNESCO
\ninvited the  member States and nongovernmental organisations
\nto  participate\t in  the  development  of  Auroville  as  an
\ninternational cultural\ttownship designed  to bring together
\nthe  values  of\t different  cultures  and  civilisations  in
\nharmonious environment.\t The foundation\t stone of  Auroville
\nwas laid on 28 February 1968 with the participation of youth
\nor many\t nations, representing\tthe coming  together of\t all
\nNations in  a spirit  of human\tunity. The  UNESCO conceived
\nAuroville township  as an instrument of education, promoting
\nmutual respect\tand understanding  between people in keeping
\nwith the spirit of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
\nUniversal  Declaration\t of  Principles\t  of   International
\nCultural Cooperation.\n<\/p>\n
     The Government  of India took active part in making the
\n1 UNESCO  interested in\t the project  and take\tdecision  as
\naforesaid  for\t the  development   of\t Auroville   as\t  an
\ninternational cultural\ttownship with  the participation  of
\ncountries who are members of the UNESCO.\n<\/p>\n
     Sri Aurobindo  Society  had  brought  the\tproposal  of
\nAuroville to  the Government  of India\tand  explained\tthat
\nAuroville was to be an international cultural township. This
\nfact is evident from the brochure submitted by Sri Aurobindo
\nSociety to the Government of India.\n<\/p>\n
     The Charter  of Auroville\tgiven  by  the\tMother\talso
\nindicates that\tit is  not a  religious institution,  as  is
\nevident from the following: F
\n     “1.     Auroville\tbelongs\t to  nobody  in\t particular.
\n\t  Auroville belongs  to humanity  as a whole. But to
\n\t  live in Auroville one must be the willing servitor
\n\t  of the Divine’s consciousness. G\n<\/p>\n
      2.   Auroville  will  be\tthe  place  of\tan  unending
\n\t  education, of\t constant progress, and a youth-that
\n\t  never ages.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   Auroville wants to be the bridge between the past
\n\t  and  the   future.   Taking\tadvantage   of\t all
\n\t  discoveries  from   without\tand   from   within,
\n\t  Auroville  will   boldly  spring   towards  future
\n\t  realisations.\n<\/p>\n
790<\/span><\/p>\n
     4.\t   Auroville  will  be\tthe  site  of  material\t and
\n\t  spiritual research  for a  living embodiment of an
\n\t  actual human unity.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  own admission  of the  General Secretary of Sri
\nAurobindo Society, Pondicherry, Auroville was to be a symbol
\nof  international   cooperation,  an   effort\tto   promote
\ninternational under  standing by  bringing together in close
\njuxtaposition\tthe   values   and   ideals   of   different
\ncivilisations  and   cultures.\tThe  cultures  of  different
\nregions of  the earth  will be\trepresented in\tAuroville in
\nsuch  a\t  way  as   to\tbe  accessible\tto  all\t not  merely
\nintellectually in ideas, theories, principles and languages,
\nbut also  in habits and customs; art in all forms-paintings,
\nsculpture, music,  architecture, decor,\t dance; as  well  as
\nphysically through natural scenery, dress, games, sports and
\ndiet. It  will be  a representation in a concrete and Jiving
\nmanner; it  will have a museum, an art gallery, a library of
\nbooks, recorded\t music etc.  It will also have other objects
\nwhich will express its intellectual, scientific and artistic
\ngenious, spiritual tendencies and national characteristics.\n<\/p>\n
     While  participating  in  UNESCO  meeting\t“Design\t for
\nIntegrated Living  Programme in Auroville” was presented and
\nthat also  goes a  long way  to show  that  it\twas  only  a
\ncultural township and not a religious institution.\n<\/p>\n
     Numerous utterings\t by  Sri  Aurobindo  or\t the  Mother
\nunmistakably show that the Ashram or Society or Auroville is
\nnot a  religious institution.  In Sri  Aurobindo’s own words
\n(The Teaching and the Ashram of Sri Aurobindo, 1934, p. 6):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The Ashram  is not  a religious association Those
\n     who are here come from all religions and some are of no
\n     religion. There  is no  creed  or\tset  of\t dogmas,  no
\n     governing religious  body; there are only the teachings
\n     of Sri Aurobindo and certain psychological practices of
\n     concentration and\tmeditation, etc.,  for the enlarging
\n     of the consciousness, receptivity to the Truth, mastery
\n     over the  desires, the discovery of the divine self and
\n     consciousness concealed  within  each  human  being,  a
\n     higher evolution of the nature.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
791<\/span><\/p>\n
Sri Aurobindo himself said(1):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “I may  say that  it is  far from  my\t purpose  to
\n     propagate any religion, new or old.”\n<\/p>\n
Sri Aurobindo says again(2):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We are not a party or a church or religion,”
\nSri Aurobindo exposes(3):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Churches and\t creeds\t have,\tfor  example,  stood
\nviolently in  the way  of philosophy  and science,  burned a
\nGiordano Bruno,\t imprisoned  a\tGalileo,  and  so  generally
\nmisconducted themselves\t in this  matter that philosophy and
\nscience had  a self-defence  to turn  upon Religion and rend
\nher to\tpieces in  order to  get  a  free  field  for  their
\nlegitimate development.”\n<\/p>\n
The Mother said on 19.3.1973:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Here we do not have religion.”\n<\/p>\n
Sri Aurobindo says again(4):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Yogic  methods   have  some\tthing  of  the\tsame
\n     relation to the customary psychological workings of man
\n     as has  to scientific  handling of the natural force of
\n     electricity or  of steam  to the  normal operations  of
\n     steam and\tof electricity. And the, too are formed upon
\n     a\tknowledge   developed  and   confirmed\tby   regular
\n     experiment,   a   practical   analysis   and   constant
\n     results….All methods grouped under the common name of
\n     Yoga are  special psychological  processes founded on a
\n     fixed truth  of nature  and developing,  out of  normal
\n     functions, powers\tand results which were always latent
\n     but which\ther ordinary  movements do  not easily or do
\n     not often manifest.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
792<\/span><\/p>\n
It is pertinent to quote Mother’s answer to a question(1):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Q. Sweet  Mother, what  is the difference between
\n     Yoga and religion;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Mother’s Ans:\t Ah! My\t child.. It is as though you
\n     were asking me the difference between a dog and a cat.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     There can\tbe no  better proof  than what Sri Aurobindo
\nand the\t Mother themselves  thought of\ttheir teachings\t and
\ntheir institutions  to find out whether the teachings of Sri
\nAurobindo and  his Integral  Yoga constitute a religion or a
\nphilosophy. The\t above utterings  from time  to time  by Sri
\nAurobindo and  the Mother  hardly leave\t any doubt about the
\nnature of  the institution.  It was on the basis that it was
\nnot a religions institution that the Society collected funds
\nfrom the  Central Government  and the  Governments of States
\nand from abroad and the other non-governmental agencies,
\n     Mr. F.S.  Nariman appearing  for respondents  Nos. 6 to
\n238 adopted  the arguments advanced by the Solicitor General
\nMr. K.\tParasaran, and\tsupplemented the  same. He submitted
\nthat  the   Society  was   registered  under  the  Societies
\nRegistration Act<\/a>,  1860 and a purely religious society could
\nnot have  been registered  under the  Societies Registration
\nAct<\/a>. Section  20<\/a> of  the Societies Registration Act provides
\nwhat kind  of Societies\t can be registered under the Act. It
\ndoes not  talk of  religious  institutions.  Of\t course,  it
\nincludes a  society with  charitable purposes.\tSection 2<\/a> of
\nthe Charitable\tEndowments Act, however, excludes charity as
\na religious  purpose. It  was  further\tcontended  that\t the
\nnature of the institution can be judged by the Memorandum of
\nAssociation. The  Memorandum of Association does not talk of
\nany religion.  The purpose  of the Society was to make known
\nto the members and the people in general the aims and ideals
\nof Sri\tAurobindo and  the Mother;  their system of Integral
\nYoga and  to work  for its fulfillment in all possible ways;
\nto train  selected students  and teachers  from all over the
\nworld  in  the\tIntegral  System  of  Education,  i.e.,\t the
\nspiritual, psychic,  mental, vital  and physical; to help in
\ncash or\t in kind  by why  of donations\tetc.;  to  organise,
\nencourage, promote  and assist\tin the\tstudy, research, and
\npursuit of  science literature and fine arts etc. Nowhere it
\ntalks of propagating religion. This is the surest
\n793<\/span>
\nindex to  know whether\tthe Auroville  or the  Society was a
\nreligious A institution.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  further contended that a religious denomination
\nmust be\t professed by  that body but from the very beginning
\nthe  Society   has  eschewed  the  word\t ‘religion’  in\t its
\nconstitution. The  Society  professed  to  be  a  scientific
\nresearch organisation  to  the\tdonors\tand  got  income-tax
\nexemption on  the  footing  that  it  was  not\ta  religious
\ninstitution. The  Society has claimed exemption from income-
\ntax under s. 80<\/a> for the donors and under s. 35<\/a> for itself on
\nthat ground.  Ashram  Trust  was  different  from  Auroville
\nAshram.\t The   Ashram  Trust  also  applied  for  income-tax
\nexemption and  got it on that very ground. So also Aurobindo
\nSociety claimed\t exemption on  the footing that it was not a
\nreligious institution  and got\tit. They  professed  to\t the
\nGovernment also\t that they  were not a religious institution
\nin their  application for  financial  assistance  under\t tho
\nCentral\t  Scheme    of\t Assistance   to   voluntary   Hindu
\norganisations.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  basis of  the materials  placed before us viz.,
\nthe Memorandum\tof Association\tof the\tSociety, the several
\napplications made by the Society claiming exemption under s.
\n35<\/a> and\ts. 80  of the Income-tax Act<\/a>, the repeated utterings
\nof Sri\tAurobindo  and\tthe  Mother  that  the\tSociety\t and
\nAuroville were\tnot religious institutions and host of other
\ndocuments there\t is no\troom  for  doubt  that\tneither\t the
\nSociety nor  Auroville constitute  a religious\tdenomination
\nand the\t teachings of  Sri Aurobindo  only  represented\t his
\nphilosophy and not a religion.\n<\/p>\n
     Even assuming  but not  holding that the Society or the
\nAuroville  were\t  a  religious\tdenomination,  the  impugned
\nenactment  is\tnot  hit   by  Article\t 25<\/a>  or\t 26  of\t the
\nConstitution. The  impugned enactment  does not\t curtail the
\nfreedom of  conscience\tand  the  right\t freely\t to  profess
\npractise and  propagate religion.  Therefore,  there  is  no
\nquestion of the enactment being hit by Article 25.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
     Article 26<\/a>\t as stated  earlier confers  freedom to\t the
\nreligious denomination:\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  to  establish\t  and  maintain\t  institutions\t for
\n\t  religious and charitable purposes;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  to own and acquire movable and immovable property;
\n\t  and
\n794<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)  to administer\t such property\tin  accordance\twith
\n\t  law.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The impugned enactment does not stand in the way of the
\nSociety\t establishing\tand  maintaining   institutions\t for
\nreligious and charitable purposes. It also does not stand in
\nthe way\t of the\t Society to manage its affairs in matters of
\nreligion. It  has only\ttaken over  the\t management  of\t the
\nAuroville by  the Society in respect of the secular matters.
\nThe position before the present Constitution came into force
\nwas that  the State did not interfere in matters of religion
\nin its\tdoctrinal and  ritualistic aspects  treating it as a
\nprivate purpose,  but  it  did\texercise  control  over\t the
\nadministration\t of    property\t  endowed    for   religious
\ninstitutions (dedicated\t to the\t public) treating  it  as  a
\npublic purpose, and this position has not changed even under
\nthe present Constitution.(1)
\n     The  scope\t and  extent  of  the  rights  conferred  by
\nArticles 25  and 26 of the Constitution are now well-settled
\nby the decision of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     To start  with, in\t The Commissioner,  Hindu  Religions
\nEndowments Madras  v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri
\nShirur Mutt<\/a>(2) dealing with various aspects of Article 26<\/a> of
\nthe Constitution this Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The other  thing that remains to be considered in
\n     regard to\tarticle 26<\/a>  is, what  is the scope of clause
\n     tb) of  the article  which speaks\tof management of its
\n     own affairs  in matters  of religion  ?  “The  language
\n     undoubtedly suggests  that there could be other affairs
\n     of a  religious denomination or a section thereof which
\n     are not  matters of religion and to which the guarantee
\n     given by this clause would not apply…………<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  It will  be seen  that besides the right to manage
\n     its own  affairs in matters of religion, which is given
\n     by clause\t(b), the  next two  clauses  of\t article  26<\/a>
\n     guarantee to  a religious\tdenomination  the  right  to
\n     acquire  and   own\t property  and\tto  administer\tsuch
\n     property in  accordance with law. The administration of
\n     its property  by a religious denomination has thus been
\n     placed on a different footing
\n795<\/span>
\n     from the  right to manage its own affairs in matters of
\n     A religion.  The latter is a fundamental right which no
\n     legislature can  take away,  whereas the  former can be
\n     regulated by  laws which  the legislature\tcan  validly
\n     impose. It\t is clear,  therefore, that questions merely
\n     relating to administration of properties belonging to a
\n     religious group  or  institution  are  not\t matters  of
\n     religion to which clause (b) of the article applies
\n     ….. freedom  of religion\t in our\t Constitution is not
\n     confined to  religious  beliefs  only;  it\t extends  to
\n     religious practices as well subject to the restrictions
\n     which the\tConstitution itself  has  laid\tdown.  Under
\n     article 26(b<\/a>),  therefore, a  religious denomination or
\n     organisation enjoys  complete autonomy in the matter of
\n     deciding as  to what rites and ceremonies are essential
\n     according to  the tenets  of the religion they hold and
\n     no outside\t authority has any jurisdiction to interfere
\n     with their\t decision in  such matters.  Of course,\t the
\n     scale of  expenses to  be incurred\t in connection\twith
\n     these religious  observations  would  be  a  matter  of
\n     administration of\tproperty belonging  to the religious
\n     denomination  and\t can  be   controlled\tby   secular
\n     authorities in  accordance with  any law laid down by a
\n     competent\tlegislature;   for  it\t could\tnot  be\t the
\n     injunction of  any religion  to destroy The institution
\n     and its endowments by incurring wasteful expenditure on
\n     rites and\tceremonies. It\tshould be  noticed, however,
\n     that under article 26(b)<\/a> it is the fundamental right of
\n     a\treligious  denomination\t or  its  representative  to
\n     administer its  properties in  accordance with law; and
\n     the  law,\t therefore,  must   leave   the\t  right\t  of
\n     administration to\tthe  religious\tdenomination  itself
\n     subject to\t such restrictions  and\t regulations  as  it
\n     might choose  to impose.  A law  which takes  away\t the
\n     right of  administration from  the hands of a religious
\n     denomination altogether  and  vests  it  in  any  other
\n     authority would  amount to\t a violation  of  the  right
\n     guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 26.”<\/a> G
\nThe same  principle was\t reiterated by\tthis  Court  in\t The
\nDurgah Committee,  Ajmer and  Anr. v.  Syed Hussain  Ali and
\nors<\/a>.(l).\n<\/p>\n
     In Tilkyat\t Shri Govindlaljl  Maharaj v.  The State  of
\nRajasthan and  ors<\/a>.(2) it  was held that the right to manage
\nthe properties of
\n796<\/span>
\na temple  was a\t purely secular\t matter\t and  could  not  be
\nregarded as  a religious  practice under  Art. 25(1)<\/a>  or  as
\namounting to affairs in matters of religion under Art. 26(b)<\/a>
\nconsequently, the  Nathdwara Temple  Act in  so\t far  as  it
\nprovided  for  the  management\tof  the\t properties  of\t the
\nNathdwara Temple  under the  provisions of  the Act  did not
\ncontravane Arts. 25(1) and 26(b) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     In Sastri\tYagnapurushadji and Ors. v. Muldas Bhudardas
\nVaishya and Anr<\/a>.(l) the appellants who were the followers of
\nthe Swaminarayan  sect\tand  known  as\tsatsangis,  filed  a
\nrepresentative suit  for a  declaration\t that  the  relevant
\nprovisions of  the Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, 1947 (as
\namended by  Act 77 of 1948) did a not apply to their temples
\nbecause, the  religion of the Swaminarayan sect was distinct
\nand different  from Hindu religion and because, the relevant
\nprovisions of  the Act\twere ultra  vires. Dealing  with the
\nquestion  this\tCourt  observed\t as  will  appear  from\t the
\nheadnote:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The Indian mind has consistently through the ages
\n     been exercised  over  the\tproblem\t of  the  nature  of
\n     godhead, the  problem that\t faces the spirit at the end
\n     of life,  and the\tinterrelation between the individual
\n     and the universal soul. According to Hindu religion the
\n     ultimate goal  of humanity\t is release and freedom from
\n     the unceasing  cycle of births and rebirths and a state
\n     of absorption  and assimilation  of the individual soul
\n     with the  infinites. On  the means\t to attain  this and
\n     there is  a great\tdivergence of  views; some emphasise
\n     the importance  of Gyana, while others extol the virtue
\n     of Bhakti\tor devotion,  yet  others  insist  upon\t the
\n     paramount importance  of the performance of duties with
\n     a heart  full of  devotion\t and  in  mind\tinspired  by
\n     knowledge, Naturally  it was realised by Hindu religion
\n     from the  very beginning  of its  career that truth was
\n     many-sided\t and  different\t views\tcontained  different
\n     aspects of truth which no one could fully express. This
\n     knowledge inevitably  bread a  spirit of  tolerance and
\n     willingness to understand and appreciate the opponent’s
\n     point of  view. Because  of this  broad sweep  of Hindu
\n     philosophic concept under Hindu philosophy, there is no
\n     scope for\tex communicating  any notion or principle as
\n     hertical and  rejecting it\t as such. The development of
\n     Hindu religion  .11 and philosophy shows that from time
\n     to time saints and
\n797<\/span>
\nreligious reformers attempted to remove from Hindu A thought
\nand practices,\telements of corruption and superstition, and
\nrevolted against  the dominance\t of rituals and the power of
\nthe priestly  class with which it came to be associated, and
\nthat led  to  the  formation  of  different  sects.  In\t the
\nteaching  of   these  saints   and  religious  reformers  is
\nnoticeable a  certain amount  of divergance in their respec-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
tive views; but underneath that divergence lie certain broad
\nconcepts which\tcan be\ttreated as basic and there is a kind
\nof subtle  indescribable unity\twhich keeps  them within the
\nsweep of  broad and  progressive Hindu\treligion. The  first
\namong these basic concepts is the acceptance of the Vedas as
\nthe highest  authority in religious and philosophic matters.
\nThis concept  necessarily implies that all the systems claim
\nto have\t drawn their  principles from  a common reservoir of
\nthought enshrined  in the  Vedas. Unlike  other religions in
\nthe world,  the\t Hindu\treligion  does\tnot  claim  any\t one
\nprophet; it  does not  worship any  one\t God;  it  does\t not
\nsubscribe to  any one  dogma, it does not believe in any one
\nphilosophic concept;  it does  not follow  any\tone  set  of
\nreligious rites\t of  performances;  in\tfact,  it  does\t not
\nsatisfy the  traditional features of a religion or creed. It
\nis a  way of  life and nothing more. The Constitution makers
\nwere  fully   conscious\t of   the  broad  and  comprehensive
\ncharacter of  Hindu religion;  and  while  guaranteeing\t the
\nfundamental right  to freedom of religion made it clear that
\nreference to  Hindus  shall  be\t construed  as\tincluding  a
\nreference to  persons professing  the Sikh, Jaila or Budhist
\nreligion.\n<\/p>\n
     Philosophically,  Swaminarayan   was  a   follower\t  of
\nRamanuja and  the essence  of his teachings is acceptance of
\nthe Vedas  with reverance,  recognition of the fact that the
\npath of\t Bhakti or  devotion leads  to Moksha, insistence or
\ndevotion to  Lord Krishna  and\ta  determination  to  remove
\ncorrupt practices and restore Hindu religion to its original
\nglory and purity. This shows unambiguously and unequivocally
\nthat Swaminarayan was a Hindu saint. Further, the facts that
\ninitiation is  necessary to  become a Satsangi, that persons
\nof other religions could join the sect by initiation without
\nany process  of proselytising  on such\toccasions, and\tthat
\nSwaminarayan  himself\tis  treated   as  a   God,  are\t not
\ninconsistent with  the basic Hindu religious and philosophic
\ntheory.”\n<\/p>\n
798<\/span><\/p>\n
     In Digyadarsan  Rajendra Ramdassji\t Varu  v.  State  of
\nAndfhra Pradesh\t and Anr<\/a>.(1)dealing  with Articles 25 and 26
\nof  the\t  Constitution\tthis   Court  on   the\t facts\t and
\ncircumstances of the case held:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It  has   nowhere  been   established  that\t the
\n     petitioner\t has   been  prohibited\t  or  debarred\tfrom
\n     professing practising  and propagating  his religion. A
\n     good deal\tmaterial has  been placed  on the  record to
\n     show that\tthe entire  math is  being guarded by police
\n     constables but  that does\tnot mean that the petitioner
\n     cannot be\tallowed\t to  enter  the\t math  premises\t and
\n     exercise the  fundamental right conferred by Art. 25(I)<\/a>
\n     of the  Constitution As  regards the  contravention  of
\n     clause (b)\t and (d)  of Art. 26<\/a> there is nothing in ss.
\n     46<\/a> and  47<\/a> which empowers the Commissioner to interfere
\n     with the  autonomy of the religious denomination in the
\n     matter of\tdeciding as to what rites and ceremonies are
\n     essential according  to the  tenets of the religion the
\n     denomination professes  or practises  nor has  it\tbeen
\n     shown  that  any  such  order  has\t been  made  by\t the
\n     Commissioner or that the Assistant Commissioner who has
\n     been  put\tin  charge  of\tthe  day-to-day\t affairs  is
\n     interfering in such matters.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On these  observations the  impugned Act  in that  case\t was
\nupheld by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
     In 1.  Krishnan v.\t G.D.M. Committee(2) a full Bench of
\nthe Kerala High Court dealing with Arts. 25 and 26 observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “…the real purpose and intendment of Articles 25
\n     and 26  is to  guarantee especially  to  the  religious
\n     minorities in  this country  the  freedom\tto  profess,
\n     practise and propagate their Religion, to establish and
\n     maintain  institutions  for  religious  and  charitable
\n     purposes, to  manage its  own  affairs  in\t matters  of
\n     religion,\tto   own  and\tacquire\t properties  and  to
\n     administer\t such  properties  in  accordance  with\t law
\n     subject  only   to\t the  limitations  and\trestrictions
\n     indicated in  those Articles.  No\tdoubt,\tthe  freedom
\n     guaranteed by  these two Articles applied not merely to
\n     religious minorities  but to  all persons\t(Article 25<\/a>)
\n     and all
\n799<\/span>
\n     religious denominations  or sections  thereof  (Article\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     26). A  But, in  interpreting the\tscope and content of
\n     the guarantee  contained in  the two Articles the Court
\n     will always  have to  keep in  mind  the  real  purpose
\n     underlying the incorporation of these provisions in the
\n     fundamental rights\t chapter. When a challenge is raised
\n     before a  court against  the validity or any statute as
\n     contravening the  fundamental rights  guaranteed  under
\n     Article 25<\/a> and 26<\/a> it is from the above perspective that
\n     tho court\twill approach  the question and the tests to
\n     be applied\t for adjudging\tthe validity of the statutes
\n     will be  the same irrespective of whether the person or
\n     denomination complaining  about the infringement of the
\n     said fundamental  right belongs to a religious minority
\n     or not.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Ramalingayya  v. The  Commissioner of Charitable and
\nHindu Religious\t Institutions &\t Endowments(l) dealing\twith
\n‘religious denomination’ the Andhra Pradesh High Court held:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Thus it  is the  distinct common faith and common
\n     spiritual organisation  and the  belief in a particular
\n     religious teacher\tof philosophy on which the religious
\n     denomination is  founded or  based, that is the essence
\n     of the  matter, but  not any  caste, or  sub-caste or a
\n     particular deity  worship\tby  a  particular  caste  or
\n     community.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In United\tStates v.  Danial Andrew  Seegar(2) the U.S.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Supreme Court  had to  construe the provisions of s. 6(j) of
\nthe Universal  Military Training  and Service  Act<\/a>  of\t1948
\nwhich,\tas  a  prerequisite  of\t exempting  a  conscientious
\nobjector from  military service, requires l? his belief in a
\nrelation to  a Supreme\tBeing involving\t duties superior  to
\nthose arising  from any human relation. Defendant’s claim to
\nexemption as  conscientious objector  was denied  after\t he,
\nprofessing religious  belief and  faith and  not disavowing,
\nalthough not  clearly demonstrating any belief in a relation
\nto a  Supreme Being,  stated that  “the cosmic\torder  does,
\nperhaps, suggest  a creative  intelligence” and\t decried the
\ntremendous  “spiritual”\t  price\t man   must  pay   for\t his
\nwillingness to\tdestroy human  life. The expression ‘Supreme
\nBeing’ was liberally construed.\n<\/p>\n
800<\/span><\/p>\n
     The Court\tdealing with  the idea\tof God\tquoted\tfrom
\nvarious religious teachers thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The community of all peoples is one. One is their
\n     origin for\t God made  the entire human race live on all
\n     the face of the earth. One, too, is their ultimate end,
\n     God. Men  expect from  the various religions answers to
\n     the riddles  of the human condition: What is man ? What
\n     is the  meaning and  purpose of our lives 1 What is the
\n     moral good\t and what is sin ? What are death, judgment,
\n     and retribution after death ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Ever since  primordial days, numerous peoples have
\n     had a  certain perception\tof that\t hidden power  which
\n     hovers over  the course  of things\t and over the events
\n     that make\tup the\tlives of man; some have even come to
\n     know of  a Supreme\t Being and  Father. Religions  in an
\n     advanced culture  have been  able to  use more  refined
\n     concepts  and   a\tmore  developed\t language  in  their
\n     struggle for an answer to man’s religious questions
\n\t  The proper  question to ask, therefore, is not the
\n     futile one.  Do you  believe in  God ? But rather, What
\n     kind of God do you believe in ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Instead  of\tpositing  a   personal\tGod,   whose
\n     existence man  can\t neither  prove\t nor  disprove,\t the
\n     ethical concept  is founded  on human experience. It is
\n     anthropocentric, not theocentric. Religion, for all the
\n     various definitions  that have  been given\t of it, must
\n     surely mean  the devotion\tof man\tto the highest ideal
\n     that he  can conceive. And that ideal is a community of
\n     spirits in which the latent moral potentialities of men
\n     shall have been elicited by their reciprocal endeavours
\n     to\t cultivate  the\t best  in  their  fellow  men.\tWhat
\n     ultimate reality  is we  do not  know; but\t we have the
\n     faith that\t it expresses  itself in  the human world as
\n     the power which inspires in men moral purpose.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On an  analysis of\t the aforesaid\tcases it  is evident
\nthat even  assuming that  the Society  or  Auroville  was  a
\nreligious denomination,\t clause (b) of Art. 26<\/a> guarantees to
\na religious  denomination a  right to manage its own affairs
\nin matters  of religion.  It will  be seen  that besides the
\nright to manage its own affairs in matters of
\n801<\/span>
\nreligion, which is given by clause (b), the next two clauses
\nof Art. 26<\/a> A guarantee to a religious denomination the right
\nto acquire  and own property and to administer such property
\nin accordance  with law.  The administration of its property
\nby a  religious denomination  has  thus\t been  placed  on  a
\ndifferent footing  from the  right to manage its own affairs
\nin matters  of religion.  The latter  is a fundamental right
\nwhich no  legislature can  take away, whereas the former can
\nbe regulated  by laws  which  the  legislature\tcan  validly
\nimpose.\t It  is\t clear,\t therefore,  that  questions  merely
\nrelating to a religious group or institution are not matters
\nof religion  to which clause (b) of the article applies. The
\nimpugned Act  had not  taken away the right of management in
\nmatters of  religion of\t a religious  denomination,  if\t the
\nSociety or  Auroville is  a religious  denomination at\tall,
\nrather it  has taken  away the\tright of  management of\t the
\nproperty of Auroville.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus the  impugned Act neither violates Article 25<\/a>, nor
\nArticle 26<\/a> of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     The  impugned   Act  was\talso  feebly  sought  to  be
\nchallenged as violating Arts. 29 and 30 of the Constitution.
\nWe are\tat a  loss to understand how these two articles have
\nany bearing  on the  impugned Act. These two articles confer
\nfour distinct rights:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  Right of  any section\t of citizens to conserve its
\n\t  own language, script or culture (Art. 29(1)).<\/a>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) Right of all religious or linguistic minorities to
\n\t  establish and\t administer educational institutions
\n\t  of their choice (Art. 30(I)).<\/a>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
   (iii)  Right of  an educational institution not to be dis
\n\t  criminated against  in matter\t of state aid on the
\n\t  ground that  it  is  under  the  management  of  a
\n\t  minority (Art. 30(2)).<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
     (iv) Right of a citizen not to be denied admission into
\n\t  a state  maintained  or  state  aided\t educational
\n\t  institution on  grounds only\tof  religion,  race,
\n\t  caste, language (Art. 29(2)).<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
     The impugned Act does not seek to curtail the rights of
\nany section of citizens to conserve its own language, script
\nor culture
\n802<\/span>
\nconferred by  Art. 29.<\/a> In order to claim the benefit of Art.
\n30(I)<\/a> the community must show: (a) that it is a religious or
\nlinguistic  minority,\t(b)   that   the   institution\t was
\nestablished by\tit. Without  satisfying these two conditions
\nit cannot claim the guaranteed rights to administer it.\n<\/p>\n
     In re The Kerala Education Bill(l) Article 30(1)<\/a> of the
\nConstitution which  deals with\tthe right  of minorities  to
\nestablish and  administer education  institutions, came\t for
\nconsideration. The  Kerala Educational Bill, 1957, which had
\nbeen passed  by the Kerala Legislative Assembly was reserved
\nby the Governor for consideration by the President.\n<\/p>\n
     The contention  of the  State of  Kerala was  that\t the
\nminority communities  may exercise  their fundamental  right
\nunder Article 30(1)<\/a> by establishing educational institutions
\nof their  choice wherever  they like and administer the same
\nin their  own way  and need  not seek  recognition from\t the
\nGovernment, but\t that if  the minority communities desire to
\nhave  state  recognition  they\tmust  submit  to  the  terms
\nimposed, as  conditions precedent  to recognition,  on every
\neducational  institution.   The\t claim\tof  the\t educational
\ninstitutions of\t the minority communities, on the other hand
\nwas  that  their  fundamental  right  under  Art.  30(1)<\/a>  is
\nabsolute and  could not\t be  subjected\tto  any\t restriction
\nwhatever. This\tCourt, however,\t did not  accept the extreme
\nviews propounded  by the parties on either side but tried to
\nreconcile the two. It observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Article 29<\/a>(])\t gives protection  to any section of
\n     citizens residing\tin the\tterritory of  India having a
\n     distinct language, P script or culture of its own right
\n     to conserve  the same the distinct languages, script or
\n     culture of\t a minority  community can best be conserved
\n     by and  through educational  institutions, for it is by
\n     education that their culture can be inculcated into the
\n     impressionable mind of the children of their community.
\n     It\t is   through  educational   institutions  that\t the
\n     language and  script of  the minority  community can be
\n     preserved, improved and strengthened. It is, therefore,
\n     that Art.\t30(I)<\/a> confers  on  all\tminorities,  whether
\n     based on  religion or  language, the right to establish
\n     and  administer   educational  institutions   of  their
\n     choice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
803<\/span><\/p>\n
     The minorities,  quite understandably,  regard it\tas A
\n     essential that  the education  of their children should
\n     be in  accordance with the teachings of their religion,
\n     and they  hold, quite  honestly, that such an education
\n     cannot be obtained in ordinary schools designed for all
\n     the members  of the  public but  can only be secured in
\n     schools conducted\tunder the  influence and guidance of
\n     people well  versed in the tenets of their religion and
\n     in the  traditions of  their  culture.  The  minorities
\n     evidently desire  that education  should be imparted to
\n     the children  of their  community .  in  an  atmosphere
\n     congenial\tto   the  growth   of  their   culture.\t our
\n     Constitution makers  recognised the  validity of  their
\n     claim and\tto allay  their fears  conferred on them the
\n     fundamental  rights   referred  to\t  above.   But\t the
\n     conservation  of  the  distinct  languages,  script  or
\n     culture is\t not  the  only\t object\t of  choice  of\t the
\n     minority communities. They also desire that scholars of
\n     their educational\tinstitutions should  go out  in\t the
\n     world  well   and\tsufficiently   equipped\t  with\t the
\n     qualifications necessary  for a  useful career in life.
\n     But according to the Education Code now in operation to
\n     which it  is permissible  to refer for ascertaining the
\n     effect of\tthe impugned provisions on existing state of
\n     affairs, the  scholars of\tunrecognised schools are not
\n     permitted to  avail themselves of the opportunities for
\n     higher education in the University and are not eligible
\n     for entering  the public services. Without recognition,
\n     therefore, the  educational institutions established or
\n     to be  established by  the minority  communities cannot
\n     fulfill the real objects of their choice and-the rights
\n     under Art.\t 30(1)<\/a> cannot  be effectively exercised. The
\n     right to  establish educational  institutions of  their
\n     choice must,  therefore, mean  the right  to  establish
\n     real institutions\twhich  will  effectively  serve\t the
\n     needs of their community and the scholars who resort to
\n     their educational institutions.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Rev.  Sidhaibhai Sabhai\t and Ors. v. State of Bombay
\nand Anr<\/a>.(l)  dealing with article 30(I)<\/a> of the Constitution,
\nthis Court held:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The\tright\testablished  by\t  Art.\t30(I)<\/a>  is  a
\n     fundamental right\tdeclared in  terms absolute.  Unlike
\n     the fundamental
\n804<\/span>
\n     freedom guaranteed\t by Art.  19<\/a>, it  is not  subject to
\n     reasonable restrictions.  It is  intended to  be a real
\n     right for\tthe protection\tof  the\t minorities  in\t the
\n     matter of\tsetting up  of educational  institutions  of
\n     their own choice. The right is intended to be effective
\n     and is  not to be whittled down by so-called regulative
\n     measures conceived\t in the interest not of the minority
\n     educational institutions,\tbut of\tthe  public  or\t the
\n     nation  as\t  a  whole.   If  every\t order\twhich  while
\n     maintaining  the\tformal\tcharacter   of\ta   minority
\n     institution destroys  the power  of  administration  is
\n     held  justifiable\tbecause\t it  is\t in  the  public  or
\n     national interest,\t though not  in its  interest as  an
\n     educational institution,  the right  guaranteed by Art.
\n     30(1)<\/a> will\t be but\t a “teasing  illusion”, a promise of
\n     unreality. Regulations  which may\tlawfully be  imposed
\n     either  by\t  legislative  or   executive  action  as  a
\n     condition of  receiving grant or of recognition must be
\n     directed to  making the institution while retaining its
\n     character\tas   a\tminority  institution  effective  an
\n     educational institution. Such regulation must satisfy a
\n     dual test-the test of reasonableness, and the test that
\n     it is  regulative of  the educational  character of the
\n     institution and  is conducive to making the institution
\n     an effective  vehicle of  education  for  the  minority
\n     community or other persons who resort to it.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In\t State\t of  Kerala   v.  Mother  Provincial<\/a>(l)\t the
\nprovisions of  the Kerala  University Act,  1969  which\t was
\npassed to reorganise the University of Kerala with a view to
\nestablishing  a\t  teaching,  residential   and\t affiliating
\nUniversity for\tthe  southern  districts  of  the  State  of
\nKerala, were  challenged. Some\tof the\tprovisions  effected
\nprivate colleges,  particularly those  founded\tby  minority
\ncommunities in\tthe State. Their constitutional validity was
\nchallenged by  some members  of those communities on various
\ngrounds in  writ petitions  filed in  the High\tCourt.\tThis
\nCourt held:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The minority\t institutions cannot  he allowed  to
\n     fall below\t the standards\tof  excellence\texpected  of
\n     educational  institutions,\t  or  under   the  guise  of
\n     exclusive right of management, to decline to follow the
\n     general pattern.  While the  management must be left to
\n     them, they\t may be\t compelled  to\tkeep  in  step\twith
\n     others.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
805<\/span><\/p>\n
     On an analysis of the two articles, Art. 29<\/a> and Art. 30<\/a>
\nand the\t three cases  referred to  above, it is evident that
\nthe impugned  Act does\tnot seek to curtail the right of any
\nsection of  citizens to conserve its own language, script or
\nculture conferred  by Art. 29.<\/a> The benefit of Art. 30(I)<\/a> can
\nbe claimed  by the  community only  on proving\tthat it is a
\nreligious or  linguistic minority  and that  the institution
\nwas established\t by it.\t In the view that we have taken that
\nAuroville or  the Society  is not  a religious denomination,
\nArticles 29  and 30  would not\tbe attracted and, therefore,
\nthe impugned  Act cannot be held to be violative of Articles
\n29 and 30 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     This leads us to the third ground, namely, the impugned
\nAct being  violative  of  Article  14<\/a>  of  the\tConstitution
\ninasmuch as  Sri Aurobindo  Society has been singled out for
\nhostile treatment,  and\t the  legislation  is  against\tthis
\nparticular institution. In order to appreciate this argument
\nit would  be necessary\tto refer  to the circumstances which
\nled to the passing of the impugned Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Sri Aurobindo Society is a society registered under the
\nWest Bengal  Societies\tRegistration  Act,  1961.  The\tmain
\nobjective of  the Society is inter alia to make known to the
\nmember. and  people in\tgeneral the  aims and  ideals of Sri
\nAurobindo and  the Mother; their system of Integral Yoga and
\nto work for its fulfillment in all possible ways and for the
\nadoption of  a spiritualised  society as  envisaged  by\t Sri
\nAurobindo. The\tSociety was engaged right from its inception
\nin collecting  funds for  the  promotion  of  works  of\t Sri
\nAurbindo and  the Mother.  The Society\tcontributes funds to
\nSri  Aurobindo\t Ashram\t and  its  international  Centre  of
\nEducation, Auroville.  As the  work of\tthe Society began to
\ngrow it needed larger and larger funds for the sustenance of
\nits own activities. In due course the Society opened several
\ncentres all  over India,  particularly at  Calcutta, Bombay,
\nNew Delhi and Madras. It has centres also in U.S.A., Zurich.
\nOsaka and  Nairobi. Sri Aurobindo Society has two registered
\noffices, one  at Calcutta  and another\tat  Pondicherry.  In
\norder to  facilitate the  work of  Sri Aurobindo  Society to
\ncollect funds,\ton a  representation made by the Society the
\nIncome-tax  Department\tof  the\t Government  of\t India\tgave
\nexemption to  the  Society  from  income-tax  under  section
\n35(1)(iii)<\/a> of  the Income  Tax Act. Income-tax exemption was
\nclaimed by  the Society\t on the ground that it is engaged in
\neducational, cultural  and scientific  activities and social
\nsciences research.  It was  on this  understanding that\t the
\nexemption from income-tax was granted to the
\n806<\/span>
\nSociety and  it is  through this exemption that the Society,
\nhad collected a huge amount from the public.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  first few\t years the  development of Auroville
\nshowed a remarkable progress and development and things were
\ngrowing at  a rapid pace. A number of Indians and foreigners
\nsettled down  in Auroville and devoted themselves to various
\nactivities of  planning, designing,  agriculture, education,
\nconstruction and  other works  such as\tthose  of  hand-made
\npaper and  other crafts and industries. A remarkable harmony
\namong members  of Auroville  was visible  and  this  gave  a
\npromise to  the Government  of India of an early fulfillment
\nof the\tideals\tfor  which  Auroville  was  established\t and
\nencouraged by  UNESCO and  other international organisations
\nof the world.\n<\/p>\n
     After the\tpassing away of the Mother in 1973, however,
\nthe  situation\t changed   and\t the   Government   received
\ninformation that  the affairs  of the Society were not being
\nproperly managed,  that there was mismanagement of the funds
\nof  the\t Society  and  diversion  of  the  funds  meant\t for
\nAuroville to other purposes.\n<\/p>\n
     The accounts of Sri Aurobindo Society were audited upto
\nthe year  ending 31st  December, 1974. For the years 1960 to
\n1971 the  E;  audit  was  conducted  by\t late  Sri  Satinath
\nChattopadhyaya, Chartered  Accountant and for the years 1972
\nto 1974\t by Sri\t T. R.\tThulsiram, Chartered  Accountant and
\nInternal Auditor of the Society. The letter addressed by him
\nto the\tPresident, Sri\tAurobindo Society dated May 26, 1976
\nrelating to  the affairs  of Bharat  Niwas as on 31st March,
\n1976 is\t revealing one and the relevant portion is extracted
\nbelow:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Thus we  have an  unutilised deficit\t of about 10
\n     lakhs at  the end\tof 31.12.74 and of about 12 lakhs at
\n     the end  of 1975 or upto 31.3.76. The situation has not
\n     improved uptil now. The activities of construction have
\n     almost come  to a\tclose after 31.12 74. Further, there
\n     are heavy\tbank overdrafts\t apart from the reduction in
\n     O. D.  facilities and  freezing of\t the money  in O. D.
\n     account.  Therefore,   in\tthese  circumstances  it  is
\n     clearly seen  that government  monies received  for the
\n     specific purpose of Bharat Niwas have been diverted for
\n     other purposes  and  there\t are  no  more\tfree  liquid
\n     resources either  as cash\tor in  bank accounts.  So we
\n     cannot  explain  saying  that  monies  are\t immediately
\n     available for  construction and  that  the construction
\n     activities are
\n807<\/span>
\n     being continued  without stop. This really is a serious
\n     matter A that calls for the proper solution.
\n\t  Therefore,  in   the\tabove  circumstances  it  is
\n     absolutely necessary  that earlier\t steps be  taken  to
\n     correct the  situation before  serious audit objections
\n     are raised by the Government Auditors. We are afraid to
\n     say that  we ourselves  would be  constrained to make a
\n     qualified report of audit, if the state of affairs does
\n     not get corrected immediately.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The situation in. Auroville became so acute that at the
\ninstance of  the Ministry  of Home  Affairs,  Government  of
\nIndia, an  enquiry  was\t conducted  in\t1976  br  the  Chief
\nSecretary,  Pondichery,\t  into\tcertain\t  aspects   of\t the
\nfunctioning of\tSri Aurobindo  Society. The  report  of\t the
\nChief Secretary\t mentioned instances of serious irregularies
\nin the\tmanagement of the Society, suspected misuse of funds
\nand auditors’ comments about the misutilisation of funds and
\nits diversion,\tand it was suggested that a further probe in
\nthe financial  matters\tof  the\t Society  and  organisations
\nconnected with\tthe Auroville  Project may be made by a team
\nof competent auditors.\n<\/p>\n
     Considering the  special position\tof  Auroville  as  a
\ncultural   township   of   international   importance,\t the
\nsubstantial grants  of the  order of  more than Rs. 90 lakhs
\ngiven by  the Government  of India and the State Governments
\ntowards the  fulfillment of  the ideals\t of  Auroville,\t the
\npresence of  a large  number of\t foreigners in Auroville who
\nhad left  their hearth\tand home  for  Auroville  which\t had
\nreceived sponsorship  from Indian Government and UNESCO, the
\ncontinued groupism  and infighting  which was  bringing\t bad
\nname to\t Auroville and\tthe special  responsibility  of\t the
\nGovernment of  India in\t regard\t p  to\tthe  foundation\t and
\ndevelopment-of Auroville, the Government of India decided to
\nset up\ta  committee  under  the  Chairmanship\tof  the\t Lt.
\nGovernor of Pondichery with the Chief Secretary of the Tamil
\nNadu and  Additional  Secretary\t of  the  Ministry  of\tHome
\nAffairs as  members by\ta resolution of the Ministry of Home
\nAffairs Government of India, dated 21st December, 1976.\n<\/p>\n
     The above Committee got a quick audit made of the funds
\nof the\tSociety and  the grants\t given to  the\tSociety\t for
\nAuroville through a team of competent auditors.\n<\/p>\n
     An important  finding of  this Committee  was that\t the
\nearlier\t  apprehension\t  about\t  instances    of    serious
\nirregularities in the manage
\n808<\/span>
\nment of\t the Society,  misutilisation of  the funds, and the
\ndiversion was  confirmed. This\tCommittee also\tsubmitted to
\nthe Government\tof India  two volumes  of the  audit report.
\nSome of\t the other important findings of the Committee based
\non audit reports were as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The\t professional\t services   required\tfrom
\n     Architects for  the construction  of Phase\t I of Bharat
\n     Niwas were\t not rendered by them and still full payment
\n     was made to these architects.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Rs.  13.30   lacs  sanctioned\t  by  various  State
\n     Governments for  construction of  pavillions  of  their
\n     respective States\twere diverted  and utilised  towards
\n     construction  in\tBharat\t Niwas\t for   common\tzone
\n     facilities-this was  without the  approval of the State
\n     Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Whilst the  books of\tBharat Niwas show that there
\n     was an unutilised balance of Rs. 22.64 lacs the Project
\n     was without  any  liquid  resources-thus  showing\tthat
\n     moneys received  out of  Govt. grants were diverted for
\n     other activities notwithstanding that this position was
\n     brought to the notice of the Society by their statutory
\n     auditor in its letter dated 26.5.76.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Although there  was no  fresh receipt\t of steel in
\n     Bharat Niwas  Phase 2 the stock was purportely revalued
\n     at a  higher rate of Rs 2000 per metric ton against the
\n     earlier rate  of Rs.  1700 per  metric ton\t adopted  on
\n     31.12.73 This  resulted is\t an  over-statement  of\t the
\n     value of stock to the amount of Rs. 42,000\/-.
\n\t  There was  a transfer\t of materials of stock worth
\n     Rs. 2.30  lacs to\tAuro Stores  by a  journal entry  on
\n     31.12.1975 Auro  Stores is\t a concern of Navjattas. The
\n     audit team concluded that as a result of this there was
\n     an unreal expenditure which had not resulted in outflow
\n     of\t resources   and  resulted   in\t  overstatement\t  of
\n     expenditure on Bharat Niwas.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  An undischarged amount of Rs. 1.45 lacs payable to
\n     the contractors Messrs E.C.C. Ltd. towards the construc
\n     tion of  Bharat  Niwas  stood  included  in  the  total
\n     expenditure as on 31.12.74-the utilisation certificates
\n     furnished
\n809<\/span>
\n     with regard  to  total  expenditure  were\theld  to  be
\n     incorrect to that extent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Although materials  purchased out  of Govt. grants
\n     could not\tbe hypothecated\t without the approval of the
\n     Government the  Society hypothecated  steel  from\tAuro
\n     Stores and\t obtained a  loan of  Rs. 6.88 lacs from the
\n     State Bank\t of India-resulting  in\t an  expenditure  of
\n     interest charge  of Rs.  9561.40 which  was held  to be
\n     inadmissible and an irregularity.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Although the\tSociety\t completed  construction  of
\n     Health Centre  in Dec. 1973 at a total cost of over Rs.
\n     2 lacs  and the  Health Centre started functioning from
\n     Dec. 1973 the Society had not furnished the utilisation
\n     certificates  in\tthe  prescribed\t form  nor  was\t the
\n     completion\t  report   duly\t  certified   by   the\t PWD
\n     authorities.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Rs. One  lac was  stated to have been received for
\n     the Project  of World  University”-and  the  money\t was
\n     stated  to\t  be  utilised.\t  There\t is  no\t such  World
\n     University in Auroville.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  A difference\tof Rs. 1,29,848\/- was noticed in the
\n     case of  the value\t of a  piece of\t land  purchased-the
\n     value of  the land\t said to have been purchased and not
\n     entered in the register was Rs. 88,5261\/-and the amount
\n     said to  have been\t paid in excess of the value for the
\n     land actually purchased was Rs. 31,322.
\n\t  The operation\t of purchase  of lands\twas  through
\n     individuals who  were  given  huge\t sums  of  money  as
\n     advances. It  was noticed\tthat in\t one transaction  an
\n     amount of\tRs. 43,250\/-representing  the balance out of
\n     advance paid  to one  V. Sunderamurthy  was adjusted as
\n     being the\tcost of\t stamp papers  used during 1971. The
\n     said individual had already taken into account the cost
\n     of stamp  papers whilst  adjusting all  other  advances
\n     during 1971.  The voucher\tfor this amount also did not
\n     give the  details of the document numbers in respect of
\n     which stamp papers worth Rs. 43,250\/ were used.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
810<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  In 1975-76  land to  the extent of 23.86 acres was
\n     purchased at  the cost of Rs. 91,496 but was registered
\n     in the  names of  four individuals and the value of the
\n     lands so registered in individual names were treated as
\n     advances to  these\t individuals.  The  names  of  these
\n     individuals  were\t “Maggi”,  “Kalit’,  “Shyamala”\t and
\n     “Ravindra Reddy”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The audit  team found\t that assets and liabilities
\n     of the  project were  overstated to  the extent  of Rs.
\n     5,l0,670.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The balance-sheet of Auroville project has been so
\n     framed that the assets side does not throw any light as
\n     to whether the corresponding assets from donations have
\n     been acquired and the problem is aggravated by the fact
\n     that a register of assets is not maintained.
\n\t  There was  a complete\t lack of  financial  control
\n     which was\tthe most  serious drawback of the system and
\n     this want of financial control was revealed in a number
\n     of established  and conventional  procedure which would
\n     have serious implications.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  It  was   not\t possible  for\tthe  Audit  Team  to
\n     establish nor  the Society\t could establish that moneys
\n     paid were\treally exchanged  with certain\tmaterials or
\n     goods of  corresponding value.  The  lack\tof  adequate
\n     scrutiny resulted in the fact that in most of the cases
\n     the bills\twere not  supported by\tadequate details  of
\n     materials having been passed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The expenditure  of Auroville\t project working out
\n     to nearly\t3 crores,  there was no system of control of
\n     expenditure-no  rules  and\t regulations  or  procedures
\n     according to  which a  particular individual  or office
\n     bearer  could   incur  an\t expenditure  only   upto  a
\n     particular limit  and not\tabove that. Persons who were
\n     authorised to  operate bank accounts had full authority
\n     to draw  as much as they wanted and there was no system
\n     of reporting or feed-back.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  In  view   of\t  the\tlarge\tscale\tconstruction
\n     activities,  large\t  amounts  of  stores  materials  of
\n     various descriptions were being handled by the project.
\n     We have  not come\tacross proper  records of stores and
\n     stock accounts  being maintained  by the  project, This
\n     indeed was a serious drawback
\n811<\/span>
\n     since in  the absence  of such  a\tsystem\tit  was\t not
\n     possible to  A verify  from the records that the moneys
\n     which were\t shown as  having been spent for purchase of
\n     materials were really paid in exchange of the materials
\n     of the  required quantity\tand quality  and whether the
\n     material  purchased   was\tactually   received  by\t the
\n     project, whether the quantity which was shown as having
\n     been utilised for the construction has been actually so
\n     utilised and the balance of stores which represented by
\n     the value was the real balance representing the various
\n     stock items.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Huge amounts of cash were being handled by persons
\n     operating\tthe   main  account   and  the\t number\t  of
\n     individuals who were given advances-there was no system
\n     under which cash could be verified at any interval.
\n\t  Even\tapart\tfrom  the  audit  report,  one\tvery
\n     important point  may be mentioned. The Society has been
\n     claiming that  they have  been holding more than Rs. 20
\n     lacs in  reserve in the account of Aurobindo Society to
\n     meet their\t obligations with  regard to  Auroville. And
\n     yet the Society has incurred heavy debts in the name of
\n     Auroville and  allocated huge  accumulation of interest
\n     to the extent of Rs. 20 lacs.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Committee  came to the conclusion that the time was
\nripe for  taking recourse  two either  of the  following two
\nalternatives:\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  Incorporation\t of   Sri  Auroville  Society  by  a
\n\t  statute as  a society\t of national  importance and
\n\t  bringing it  under Entry  63 of  the Union List of
\n\t  the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  Takeover of the management of Auroville project by
\n\t  the Government for a limited period by legislation
\n\t  under Art. 31<\/a> A(l)(b) of the Constitution.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     There was\tan intensive  examination of the Committee’s
\nreport\tas   also  of\tthe  audit   report.  All  kinds  of
\npossibilities were  explored by\t the Government of India for
\nremedying the  situation including  several discussions with
\nthe managers of the Sri Aurobindo Society.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  same time,\t it was apparent that the Government
\ngrants which  were given for the construction works remained
\nunutilised and
\n812<\/span>
\ndiverted. The  construction work  itself was  stagnant.\t The
\nAuroville township  had been  conceived to be spread over 10
\nsq. miles (minimum) for about 50,000 people. Considering the
\nmulti-dimensional task,\t the work  which was accomplished by
\n1976 was  not even marginal. It became obvious that the work
\nhad already come to a standstill and that there was not much
\nprospect of further growth of Auroville.\n<\/p>\n
     On a  close examination  of the  audit  report  certain
\nclarifications were  sought from  those at  the helm  of the
\naffairs in the Sri Aurobindo Society on various points which
\nhad come  to light  through the\t audit report.\tAD extensive
\ncorrespondence on  this subject\t was, therefore, undertaken.
\nThe Government\tof India  received from\t the  Sri  Aurobindo
\nSociety answers\t which were  often evasive  and\t which\tonly
\nconfirmed the  findings of  the Committee’s report and audit
\nreport.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t may  also  be\tmentioned  that\t the  atmosphere  in
\nAuroville became  so bad  that it gave rise to law and order
\nproblem. The  Government of  Tamil Nadu\t was obliged several
\ntimes to  promulgate orders  under s. 144<\/a> Cr. P. C. Even so,
\nthe situation  remained so  bad that  there were about three
\ninstances in which residents of Auroville sustained injuries
\nbecause of fighting between groups.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Government  of  India\t examined  the\tcharges\t and
\ncounter charges\t in detail.  Union Education  Minister\talso
\npaid a\tvisit to Auroville towards the end of October, 1980.
\nThus after  full consideration\tof various  aspects  of\t the
\nproblem, the Government of India decided to take recourse to
\nthe promulgation  of an ordinance. Accordingly, the impugned
\nordinance was promulgated on 10th November, 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. K.  K. Venugopal,  appearing for  the\tpetitioners,
\nhowever,  referred   to\t the   decision\t of  the  respective
\nMinistries on  the audit  report.  During  October-November,
\n1979,  he  contended  the  Ministry  of\t Education  and\t the
\nMinistry of  Home Affairs took decision on six major points.
\nOne of the points on which decision was taken was that there
\nwere no\t legal grounds for takeover of Auroville and neither
\nthe Government\twas interested.\t This decision, among others
\nwas later on endorsed by the respective Union Ministers. The
\nreport submitted  by Mr.  P. P. Srivastava, Joint Secretary,
\nMinistry  of   Home  Affairs,  who  visited  Pondichery\t and
\nAuroville on a fact finding
\n813<\/span>
\nmission from  8th  to  10th  October,  1980,  contained\t the
\nfollowing A observations:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “All along  the  view\t of  the  Ministry  of\tHome
\n     Affairs has  been that  there is no case of takeover of
\n     the administration\t of Auroville.\tThis is\t an internal
\n     matter and\t the  Government  need\tnot  interfere.\t The
\n     Government of  Tamil Nadu should be asked to depute two
\n     officers  to   help  the  Shri  Aurobindo\tSociety\t for
\n     administering the finances and the administration.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The contention  of Mr.  Venugopal\tis  that  the  audit
\nreport had  once been  considered and the Government did not
\nchoose to  take any  further steps on assurance given on the
\nbehalf of the Society that the irregularities pointed out by
\nthe audit  report will\tbe rectified  and proper  management
\nwould be  carried out  in future.  There was  absolutely  no
\nreason for Government to have come forward with the proposal
\nof the\timpugned ordinance  or the  impugned Act taking over
\nthe management\tof  the\t Auroville  from  the  Society.\t The
\ncircumstances  obtaining   on  the   date  of  the  impugned
\nordinance  or\tthe   impugned\t Act   were   the   relevant
\nconsiderations for  the enactment. And the earlier report of
\nthe  audit   which  had\t  already  been\t considered  by\t the
\nGovernment and the irregularities having been condoned, they
\ncannot be  made the  basis for the impugned ordinance or the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  respondents, however,  it\t is  contended\tthat
\ndespite the  assurance given  by the  office bearers  of the
\nSociety nothing\t tangible had been done and the condition of
\nthe institution was going from bad to worse.\n<\/p>\n
     The Government was involved in this case inasmuch as it
\nwas at\tthe instance  of the  Government that the UNESCO and
\nother members  of UNESCO  had  generously  donated  for\t the
\nconstruction of Auroville, the cultural township to the tune
\nof crores  of rupees.  It was,\ttherefore, a matter of vital
\nconcern\t for  the  Government  of  India  to  see  that\t the
\ndonations so  generously received  from Government  of India
\nand from  other States\tas also\t from abroad  were  properly
\nutilised to  carry out the mission of Shri Aurobindo and the
\nMother.\n<\/p>\n
     In view  of the  prevailing situation  in the Auroville
\nand the\t Society the  only way\tto put the management on the
\nwheels was to take over the management of the institution.\n<\/p>\n
814<\/span><\/p>\n
     It was  further contended\tby Mr. Venugopal that if the
\nmanagement of  the institution\thad been  taken over  by the
\nGovernment on  the ground  of mis-management, there could be
\nother  institutions   where  similar   situation  might\t  be
\nprevailing. There  should have\tbeen a\tgeneral\t legislation
\nrather than  singling out Shri Aurobindo Society for hostile
\ntreatment.\n<\/p>\n
     The  argument  cannot  be\taccepted  for  two  reasons.
\nFirstly, because  it has not been pointed out which were the
\nother institutions where similar situations were prevailing.
\nBesides,  there\t  is  a\t uniqueness  with  this\t institution
\ninasmuch as  the Government  is also involved. Even a single
\ninstitution may\t be taken  as  a  class.  The  C:  situation
\nprevailing in  the Auroville  had converted the dream of the
\nMother into  a nightmare.  There had  arisen acute  law\t and
\norder  situation  in  the  Auroville,  numerous\t cases\twere
\npending against\t various foreigners, the funds meant for the
\nAuroville had  been diverted  towards other purposes and the
\natmosphere was getting out of hand. In the circumstances the
\nGovernment intervened  and  promulgated\t the  ordinance\t and
\nlater on substituted it by the impugned enactment. It cannot
\nbe said\t that it is violative of Article 14<\/a> on that account.
\nWe get support for our view from the following decisions.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t Budhan\t  Chowdhury  v.\t The  State  of\t Bihar(l)  a
\nConstitution Bench  of seven  Judges of this Court explained
\nthe true meaning and scope of Article 14<\/a> as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It is  now well established that while article 14<\/a>
\n     forbids  class   legislation,  it\t does\tnot   forbid
\n     reasonable\t  classification   for\t the   purposes\t  of
\n     legislation. In  order, however,  to pass\tthe test  of
\n     permissible  classification   two\tconditions  must  be
\n     fulfilled, namely\t(i) that  the classification must be
\n     founded   on    an\t  intelligible\t differentia   which
\n     distinguishes  persons   or  things  that\tare  grouped
\n     together from  others left\t out of\t the group and, (ii)
\n     that the  differentia must\t have a rational relation to
\n     the object\t sought to  be achieved\t by the\t statute  in
\n     question.\tThe   classification  may   be\tfounded\t  on
\n     different bases,  namely, geographical, or according to
\n     objects or occupation or the like, What is necessary is
\n     that there\t must  be  a  nexus  between  the  basis  of
\n     classification  and   the\tobject\t of  the  Act  under
\n     consideration. It\tis  also  well\testablished  by\t the
\n     decisions of this Court that
\n815<\/span>
\n     article  14<\/a>  condemns  discrimination  not\t only  by  a
\n     substantive law but also by a law of procedure.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These observations  were quoted\t with approval by this Court
\nin Shri\t Ram Krishna  Dalmia v.\t Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar
\nand Ors<\/a>.(l) In this case the Court further laid down:\n<\/p>\n
     “(a) that\ta law  may be  constitutional even though it
\n\t  relates to  a single\tindividual if, on account of
\n\t  some special\tcircumstances or  reasons applicable
\n\t  to him  and not  applicable to others, that single
\n\t  individual may be treated as a class by himself;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (b)  that there  is always  a presumption in favour of
\n\t  the constitutionality\t of  an\t enactment  and\t the
\n\t  burden is  upon him  who attacks  it to  show that
\n\t  there\t has  been  a  clear  transgression  of\t the
\n\t  constitutional principles;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)   that it  must be  presumed that  the\t legislature
\n\t  under stands and correctly appreciates the need of
\n\t  its own  people, that\t its laws  are\tdirected  to
\n\t  problems made\t manifest by experience and that its
\n\t  discriminations are based on adequate grounds;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (d)  that the legislature is free to recognise degrees
\n\t  of harm  and may confine its restrictions to those
\n\t  cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (e)  that in order to sustain the presumption of consti
\n\t  tutionality the  court may take into consideration
\n\t  matters of  common knowledge,\t matters  of  common
\n\t  report, the  history of  the times  and may assume
\n\t  every\t state\tof  facts  which  can  be  conceived
\n\t  existing at the time of legislation; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (f)   that\t while\tgood  faith  and  knowledge  of\t the
\n\t  existing conditions  on the  part of a legislature
\n\t  are to  be presumed,\tif there  is nothing  on the
\n\t  face of  the law  or the surrounding circumstances
\n\t  brought to  the notice  of the  court on which the
\n\t  classification  may\treasonably  be\tregarded  as
\n\t  based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot
\n\t  be carried to the extent of
\n816<\/span>
\n\t  always holding that there must be some undisclosed
\n\t  and  unknown\t reasons  for\tsubjecting   certain
\n\t  individuals  or   corporations   to\thostile\t  or
\n\t  discriminating legislation.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Ram  Prasad Narayan  Sahi and  Anr. v.\tThe State of
\nBihar and  ors<\/a>.(l) the\tCourt of  Wards had  granted to\t the
\nappellant a  large area of land belonging to the Bettiah Raj
\nwhich was  then under  the management of the Court of Wards,
\non the\trecommendation of  the Board of Revenue, at half the
\nusual rates.  The Bihar Legislature passed an Act called the
\nSathi Lands  (Restoration) Act,\t 1950 which  declared  that,
\nnotwithstanding anything  contained in\tany law for the time
\nbeing in  force the  settlement granted\t to  the  appellants
\nshall be  null and  void and that no party to the settlement
\nor his\tsuccessors in  interest\t shall\tbe  deemed  to\thave
\nacquired any right or incurred any liability thereunder, and
\nempowered the  Collector to  eject the\tappellants  if\tthey
\nrefused to  restore the lands. The appellants challenged the
\nconstitutionality of  the Act  under Article 226.<\/a> This Court
\nheld:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The dispute\tbetween the appellants and the State
\n     was really\t a  private  dispute  and  a  matter  to  be
\n     determined by  a judicial\ttribunal in  accordance with
\n     the law applicable to the case, and, as the Legislature
\n     had, in  passing the impugned enactment singled out the
\n     appellants and  deprived them  of their  right to\thave
\n     this dispute  adjudicated upon  by a  duly\t constituted
\n     Court, the\t enactment  contravened\t the  provisions  of
\n     article 14<\/a>\t of the\t Constitution  which  guarantees  to
\n     every citizen the equal protection of the laws, and was
\n     void.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Legislation  which   singles\tout   a\t  particular
\n     individual from the fallow subjects and visits him with
\n     a disability  which is  not imposed upon the others and
\n     against which even the right of complaint is taken away
\n     is highly discriminatory.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The facts  of this case are distinguishable from the case in
\nhand. In  that case  the legislation  was made\tonly  for  a
\nparticular person.  In the  cases in  hand on account of the
\nuniqueness  of\t the  institution  and\ton  account  of\t the
\ninvolvement of the Government and the
\n817<\/span>
\nstake being  a high one about public funds, Parliament could
\ntake a particular institution as a class by itself.\n<\/p>\n
     In Ram  Chandra Deb  v.  The  State  of  Orrisa(1)\t Sri
\nJagannath Temple Act, 1955 was sought to be challenged being
\nviolative of  Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution inasmuch as the
\nlegislature had\t made a separate Act for a particular temple
\nalone and  there were  adequate\t provisions  in\t the  Orrisa
\nReligious Endowments  Act, 1951\t which was  the general\t Act
\napplicable to  all public temples and religious institutions
\nand contained  adequate provisions  to meet  all  situations
\nsimilar contention as raised in the present cases was raised
\nin that\t case that  a particular temple had been singled out
\nfor  hostile  discrimination.  It  was\tcontended  that\t the
\nCommissioner of\t Hindu Religious Endowments had ample powers
\nunder the Act to frame a scheme for the proper management of
\nthe temple  also and  the legislature by enacting a separate
\npiece of  legislation for  the temple  alone,  ignoring\t the
\nother temples  of Orrisa  such as those at Bhubaneswar where
\nalso there  might be similar administration, bad contravened
\nArticle 14.<\/a>  This argument  was, however,  repelled  by\t the
\nOrrisa High Court with the following observations:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The\tprinciples   underlying\t Art.\t14<\/a>  of\t the
\n     Constitution have\tbeen reiterated in several decisions
\n     of the  Supreme Court  and it  is unnecessary to repeat
\n     them in  detail. All  that article\t prohibits is  class
\n     legislation and not reason- able classification for the
\n     purpose of\t legislation so\t long as such classification
\n     is not  arbitrary and “bears a rational relation to the
\n     object  sought  to\t be  achieved  by  the\tstatutes  in
\n     question”.. In  Charanjit Lal  v. Union  of India<\/a> (1950
\n     SCR 869)  a separate  law enacted\tfor one\t company was
\n     held not  to offend  Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution on the
\n     ground that  there were  special  reasons\tfor  passing
\n     legislation for that company.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
When that  case came  up in  appeal to\tthis  Court  at\t the
\ninstance of  the son  of the petitioner, in Raja Birakishore
\nv. The State of Orrisa(2) this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “There  is   no  violation   of  Art.\t 14<\/a>  of\t the
\n     Constitution. The\tJagannath Temple  occupies a  unique
\n     position in  the State  of Orrisa\tand is\ta temple  of
\n     national importance and
\n818<\/span>
\n     no other  temple in  that State can compare with it. It
\n     stands in\ta class\t by itself  and considering the fact
\n     that it  attracts –  pilgrims from\t all over  India, in
\n     large numbers,  it could  be  the\tsubject\t of  special
\n     consideration by  the State  Government. A\t law may  be
\n     constitutional even  though  it  related  to  a  single
\n     individual if  on account\tof special  circumstances or
\n     reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others,
\n     that single individual may be treated as a class by him
\n     self.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It was next contended that there were provisions in the
\nSocieties Registration\tAct<\/a> itself  to\tmeet  the  situation
\narising\t in  Auroville.\t There\twas  to\t necessity  for\t the
\nimpugned ordinance or the enactment. Shri Venugopal referred
\nto the\tvarious provisions of the Societies Registration Act<\/a>
\nto show\t that it  was open  to the  Registrar to call for an
\nexplanation  from   the\t Society   for\tany   illegality  or
\nirregularity committed\tby them\t or  if\t there\twas  a\tmis-
\nappropriation of  funds,. inasmuch  as the  Act was  a self-
\ncontained Code and there was absolutely no justification for
\nany ordinance  or the enactment. The law and order situation
\nalso could  be controlled  by resorting to the provisions of
\nthe Code<\/a> of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
     Whether  the  remedies  provided  under  the  Societies
\nRegistration Act<\/a>  were sufficient  to meet the exigencies of
\nthe situation  is not  for the Court to decide but it is for
\nthe Government\tand  if\t the  Government  thought  that\t the
\nconditions prevailing  in the  Auroville and the Society can
\nbe ameliorated\tnot by\tresorting to  the provisions  of the
\nSocieties Registration\tAct<\/a> but by a special enactment, that
\nis an area of the Government and not of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Para 6 of the preamble of the Act gives the reasons for
\nthe enactment. It reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “AND whereas\tpursuant to  the complaints received
\n     with regard  to mis-use  of  funds\t by  Shri  Aurobindo
\n     Society, a\t Committee was set up under the Chairmanship
\n     of the Lt. Governor of Pondicherry with representatives
\n     of the  Government of Tamil Nadu and of the Ministry of
\n     Home Affairs  in the  Central Government,\tand the said
\n     Committee had  after detailed  scrutiny of the accounts
\n     of Sri  Aurobindo Society\tfound instances\t of  serious
\n     irregularities in\tthe management\tof the said Society,
\n     mis-utilisation of\t its funds  and their  diversion  to
\n     other purposes.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
819<\/span><\/p>\n
On the basis of para 6 of the preamble it is argued that the
\ngrounds A  given  were\tnon-existant  at  the  time  of\t the
\nimpugned ordinance  or the enactment and, therefore, the law
\nmade on that basis itself is bad.\n<\/p>\n
     We are afraid the argument has no substance. Obviously,
\nthere were  serious irregularities  in the management of the
\nsaid Society  as has been pointed out in the earlier part of
\nthe judgment.  There has  been mis-utilisation\tof funds and
\ntheir diversion\t to other purposes. This is evident from the
\naudit report.  There was no material change in the situation
\non the date of the impugned ordinance or the Act, rather the
\nsituation had  grown  from  bad\t to  worse  and\t the  sordid
\nsituation prevailing  in the Auroville so pointed out by the
\nparties fully  justified the  promulgation of  the ordinance
\nand the\t passing of  the enactment.  Of course,\t each  party
\ntried to  apportion the\t blame on  the other.  Whosoever  be
\nresponsible, the  fact remains that the prevailing situation
\nin the\tAuroville was  far  from  satisfactory.\t The  amount
\ndonated\t for  the  construction\t of  the  cultural  township
\nAuroville and  other institutions  was to  the tune of Rs. 3
\ncrores. It  was the  responsibility of the Government to see
\nthat the  amount was not mis-utilised and the management was
\nproperly carried out. So, the basis of the argument that the
\nfacts as  pointed out  in the  preamble were  non est is not
\ncorrect.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr Venugopal  tried  to  explain  the  various  adverse
\nremarks made  by the  auditors. On  a perusal  of the  audit
\nreport, which is a voluminous one, all we can say is that on
\nthe facts found by the audit committee, the report is rather
\na mild\tone. There seems to be serious irregularities in the
\naccounts. A  substantial amount received by way of donations
\nhad not been properly spent, there being mis-utilisation and
\ndiversion of the funds.\n<\/p>\n
     The Attorney-General  appearing for  the Union of India
\ncontended that\teven assuming  for the sake of argument, but
\nnot conceding  that the\t facts brought\tto the notice of the
\nlegislature were  wrong, it will not be open to the Court to
\nhold the Act to be bad on that account.\n<\/p>\n
     We find  considerable force  in  this  contention.\t The
\nCourt would not do so even in case of a litigation which has
\nbecome final  on the  ground that  the facts or the evidence
\nproduced in the case were not correct. The Parliament had to
\napply its mind on the facts before it.\n<\/p>\n
820<\/span><\/p>\n
     The Attorney-General  also raised a sort of preliminary
\nobjection on  behalf of\t the Union of India, that in view of
\nArt. 31A<\/a>  the petitioners could not challenge the Act on the
\nground of  contravention of  Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution. In
\nso far as it is material for the purposes of this case, Art.
\n31A<\/a> reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “31A. (I)  Notwithstanding anything  contained  in
\n     article l 3, no law providing for-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) …. ………………………………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)   the taking over of the management of any property
\n\t  by the  State for  a limited\tperiod either in the
\n\t  public interest  or in  order to assure the proper
\n\t  management of the property,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) ……………………………………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d) ……………………………………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (e) …………………………………….
\n     shall be  deemed to  be void  on the  ground that it is
\n     inconsiststent with,  or takes  away or abridges any of
\n     the rights conferred by article 14<\/a> or article 19.”<\/a>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We find\t this  argument\t to  be\t plausible  but\t instead  of
\nexpressing any\tconcluded opinion on this point we preferred
\nto deal with the various contentions raised by Mr. Venugopal
\non Art.\t 14<\/a> of the Constitution in view of the importance of
\nthe question involved in this case.\n<\/p>\n
     A\tsubsidiary   point  was\t further  submitted  by\t Mr.
\nVenugopal that\tno qualifications  have been prescribed and,
\ntherefore any person could be appointed as an Administrator.
\nWe can\tnormally assume\t that the Government would certainly
\nappoint a  responsible person as an administrator especially
\nwhen there is a heavy stake in which the Government of India
\nis  also  involved  inasmuch  as  at  the  instance  of\t the
\nGovernment  the\t  UNESCO  gave\t financial  support  to\t the
\ninstitution.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t was  further  submitted  that\tthe  report  of\t the
\nCommittee was  a tainted  one as  the Chairman, Kulkarni and
\nthe Secretary  were parties. There is no foundation for this
\nsubmission.\n<\/p>\n
821<\/span><\/p>\n
     We, therefore,  hold that the impugned ordinance or the
\nimpugned  Act\tis  not\t violative  of\tArticle\t 14<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
     Now we  turn to  the last\tbut not\t the least important
\nground of  mala fides. The Act<\/a> is sought to be challenged on
\nthe ground  that it  is mala  fide. This  argument is on the
\nbasis that  Kirit Joshi, who had his own axe to grind in the
\nmatter, was  instrumental in  getting the impugned ordinance
\nand the\t Act passed. This argument bas been advanced only to
\nbe rejected.  Allegations about\t mala fides  are more easily
\nmade than  made out.  It will  be too  much to\tcontend that
\nKirit Joshi,  who was  only an\tEducational Adviser  to\t the
\nGovernment of  India,  Ministry\t of  Education\tand  Culture
\n(Department of\tEducation), was responsible for the impugned
\nenactment. The\timpugned enactment  was passed following the
\ndue procedure  and merely  because he made a complaint about
\nthe situation  prevailing in the management of Auroville and
\nthe Society,  it cannot\t be said that the impugned enactment
\nwas passed at his behest.\n<\/p>\n
     For the reasons given above all the writ petitions must
\nfail. In  view of  the final  decision on the writ petitions
\nthemselves, it\tis not\tnecessary to pass any specific order
\nin the\tappeal filed against the interim order in one of the
\nwrit petitions. The parties in the circumstances of the case
\nare left to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
S. R.\t\t\t\t\tPetitions dismissed.\n822<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR, 1 1983 SCR (1) 729 Author: R Misra Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj), Bhagwati, P.N., Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J), Eradi, V. Balakrishna (J), Misra, R.B. (J) PETITIONER: S.P. MITTAL ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-256145","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1982-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-16T11:31:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"170 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-16T11:31:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982\"},\"wordCount\":29966,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982\",\"name\":\"S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-16T11:31:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-16T11:31:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"170 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982","datePublished":"1982-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-16T11:31:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982"},"wordCount":29966,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982","name":"S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-16T11:31:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-mittal-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-8-november-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 8 November, 1982"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256145","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=256145"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256145\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256145"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256145"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256145"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}