The Supreme Court has ruled that a Mathadhipati cannot be reduced to a purely spiritual figure while the administration and secular affairs of a Mutt remain permanently under the control of a government-appointed official. Such a separation, the Court said, strikes at the very foundation of Mahantship and violates the constitutional protections granted to religious denominations under Article 26.
In a significant judgment concerning the historic Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt in Tirupati, a Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar overturned Andhra Pradesh government orders that had removed Arjun Dass as the Mutt’s Mathadhipati and installed a “Fit Person” to manage the institution.
The Court drew heavily from long-standing constitutional principles governing Hindu religious institutions, observing that the role of a Mahant has never been confined to spiritual leadership alone. Traditionally, the office combines religious authority with responsibility over the institution’s properties, finances and administration. According to the Bench, these functions are inseparable.
The judges noted that the concept of Mahantship is not merely that of a property manager or administrator. A Mahant serves as the spiritual head of a religious order, guiding disciples and preserving the traditions of the sampradaya. At the same time, the office carries control over the institution’s temporal affairs. Removing one aspect while retaining the other would fundamentally alter the nature of the post.
The Court held that any arrangement under which a lawful Mathadhipati continues to hold office but is indefinitely deprived of administrative authority in favour of a government-appointed custodian effectively destroys the institution of Mahantship itself.
While acknowledging that governments may regulate the management of religious properties through valid legislation, the Bench stressed that the removal or displacement of a spiritual head must follow procedures that are fair, neutral and minimally intrusive. Constitutional guarantees under Article 26, the Court observed, prevent the State from interfering beyond what is necessary for lawful regulation.
The dispute traces its roots to decades of conflict between Arjun Dass and the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Department. Associated with the Mutt since 1970, Arjun Dass became its permanent Mahant in 2000 after recognition by the Akhil Bharatiya Sri Panch Digambar Ani Akhada Panchayat as the sole surviving disciple of his predecessor.
Soon after, disputes emerged regarding control over the Mutt’s affairs. In 2003, attempts were made by the Endowments Department to challenge his appointment and retain authority over the institution’s secular administration. Litigation followed, culminating in directions from the Andhra Pradesh High Court that management of the Mutt’s properties and secular affairs be restored to him. Those directions were implemented through a government order in 2006.
A fresh round of proceedings began in 2017 after media reports raised allegations concerning the Mutt’s administration. In May 2023, the Andhra Pradesh Dharmika Parishad decided to initiate disciplinary action against Arjun Dass. Within weeks, 16 charges were framed against him, he was suspended from office, and a “Fit Person” was appointed to take charge of the institution. Authorities also assumed physical control of the Mutt office and the Mahant’s residence.
The allegations ranged from unauthorised transactions involving Mutt properties and financial irregularities to nepotism, failure to safeguard assets and broader claims of maladministration. An inquiry committee later concluded that all charges stood proved, leading to his removal.
The Supreme Court, however, found the action unsustainable and set aside the orders that had displaced him from office. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed that the office of a Mahant is a composite institution in which spiritual authority and administrative responsibility are intertwined, and that the State cannot permanently sever one from the other without undermining constitutionally protected religious autonomy.
