Religious
Denomination
“Religious
denomination means a religious sect or body having common faith and
organisation and designated by a distinctive name.”
A well-known case
relates to the Swaminarayan Sect where the court rejected the claim of
the sect of “Sathsangis” to be considered as a separate religion merely
on the ground of differences observed in Hindu temples.
A religious entity
cannot claim to have a ‘denomination’ simply on account of differences from the
mainstream practice.
In SP Mittal v.
Union of India and others, (SCR (1) 729) the Constitution Bench of SC refused
to accept Sri Aurobindo as a ‘religious denomination’.
Swami Dayananda
Saraswati created a new religious denomination, known as the Arya Samaj.
What is the
characteristic of a “religious denomination”? One of the key factors is a sense
of ‘exclusive belongingness’.
The test for determination
of denominational status is three fold –
1)
Common faith;
2)
Common organisation;
3)
Designation by distinctive name;
All the three have
to be established for confirming a denominational status.
In the case of
Sabarimala Temple, the religious ceremonies are not distinct from any other Hindu
temples. No separate administration. There is no particular follower of this temple
except general Hindu followers. Therefore Sabarimala Temple is a public temple.
For this reason, the Hon’ble SC allowed the claim of the women’s entry, though
the universal right of entry is not a permissive right that is dependent on
temple authorities.
Sec.3 of the
Kerala Hindu Places Entry Act, 1965 makes it clear that all places of public
worship are to be open to all sections and classes of Hindus of whatever
section or class to worship, pray or perform. Rule 3 (B) adds that women are
not allowed to enter a place of worship at ‘such time’ during which they were
not by custom or usage allowed to enter the temple.
The Tamil Nadu
Govt passed a G.O.Ms.No.1998 dated 12.8.1974 wherein all the buildings owned by
Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious trust and charitable institution were
exempted from all the provisions of the Rent Act.
Another notification
was issued by the TN Govt under G.O.Ms.No.2000 dated 16.8.1976 exempting all
the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim public religious and
public charitable institutions.
The first G.O.
relates to all the religious trust and charitable institutions. The Second G.O.
relates to all the public religious and public charitable trusts.
If a temple is
a denominational temple, then it is a private temple.
In the text book
of B.K.Mukherjea on the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts (4th
Edition) at page 474 where it was observed:
“As Mitter, J.
observed in Nabi Shirazi v. Province of Bengal, ILR (1942) 1 Cal 211 at page
288 (AIR 1942 Cal 343 at p.349) the essential distinction between a public and
a private trust is that in the former the beneficiaries are definite and ascertained
individuals or who within a definite time can be definitely ascertained, but in
the latter the beneficial interest must be vested in an uncertain and
fluctuating body of persons – either the public at large or some considerable portion
of it answering a particular description. The fact that the uncertain and
fluctuating body of persons is a section of the public following a particular
religious faith or is only a sect of persons of a certain religious persuasion
would not make any difference in the matter and would not make the trust a
private trust. “
In Hindu Religious
Endowments Board v. Veeraraghavacharlu, AIR 1937 Madaras 750, Varadachariar, J,
referring to the decision in Bhupathi Nath Shrititirtha v. Ramlal Makrain
(1910) ILR 37 Cal 128, observed:
“When once it is
understood that the true beneficiaries of religious endowments are not the
idols but the worshippers, and that the purpose of the endowment is the maintenance
of that worship for the benefit of the worshippers, the question whether an
endowment is private or public presents no difficulty. The cardinal point to be
decided is whether it was the intention of the founder that specified
individuals are to have the right of worship at the shrine, or the general
public or any specified portion thereof. In accordance with this theory, it has
been held that when property is dedicated for the worship of a family idol,
it is a private and not a public endowment, as the persons who are entitled
to worship at the shrine of the deity can only be the members of the family,
and that is an ascertained group of individuals. But where the beneficiaries
are not members of a family or specified individuals, then the endowment can
only be regarded as public, intended to benefit the general body of
worshippers.”
In V.K.Varadachari’s
Law of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (2nd Edition) at
page 17, while dealing with the distinction between a public and a private trust,
it was observed:
“The essential
distinction between a public and a private endowment is that in the former, the
beneficial interest is vested in an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons
either the public at large, or some considerable portion of it answering a
particular description; in a private endowment, the beneficiaries are definite and
ascertained individuals or who within a definite time can be ascertained definitely.
The essence of a public endowment consists in its being dedicated to the
public.”
“A public trust is
of a permanent character and when once the trust is established it will not be
open to the founders or trustees to put an end to it or divert the income of
the trust properties either to their own use or to any purpose other than that
for which the endowment was created.”
It was further
observed that in the case of a private trust, the beneficiaries may condone mal-administration
by trustees. But it cannot be done in the case of a public trust.
Lastly, it was
observed that charitable trusts in India are public trusts only. But
a religious trust may be public or private.
In Deoki Nandan v.
Muralidhar, their Lordships have observed the distinction between private and
public trust as follows:
“The distinction
between a private and a public trust is that whereas in the former the
beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they are the general
public or a class thereof. While in the former the beneficiaries are persons
who are ascertained or capable of being ascertained, in the latter they constitute
a body which is incapable of ascertainment. A religious endowment must, therefore,
be held to be private or public according as the beneficiaries thereunder are
specific persons or the general public or sections thereof.”
The Division Bench
of the Madras High Court in Sri C.S.Ambigai Temple v. Commissioner,
H.R.&C.E. held:
“The Arya Vysya
community people of Ammapet in the instant case do form a part of the Hindu
community at large. They constitute a considerable section of the Hindu public.
Merely because the place set apart for worship is being used by a particular
section of the public it will not cease to be a place set apart for public worship.”
It has recognised
the proposition that even a temple dedicated for the purpose of a particular section
of the Hindu community could also be a public temple if the community constitutes
a considerable section of the Hindu Public and the members of which worship in
the temples as of a right.
Sec.6(20) of the Tamil
Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act defines “temple” as follows:
“Temple means a
place by whatever designation known used as a place of public religious worship,
and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used, as of right by, the Hindu
community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship.”
**
