Arjun Dassv.State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Legal Analysis: Arjun Dass v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 592

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari & Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 38500 of 2025 against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 09.05.2025 in CMA No. 538 of 2023.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant, Mathadhipathi of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi, was removed from office by the Dharmika Parishad under Section 51(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, on multiple charges including misconduct and misappropriation. The High Court affirmed the removal. The Supreme Court set aside the removal, holding that: (i) the charge memo and 29 relied‑upon documents (over 600 pages) were never duly served on the appellant; (ii) purported service by affixation on the door of premises already taken over by the State was no service; (iii) the enquiry committee comprised members of the same body that had pre‑decided the outcome; (iv) the High Court failed to exercise its full appellate jurisdiction under Section 51(4). The Court, exercising power under Article 142, appointed a retired District Judge as an independent Enquiry Committee and an Administrative Committee comprising retired judges, religious representatives, and experts to supervise the Mutt's affairs pending fresh enquiry. The appellant was restored to the status of Mathadhipati.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Arjun Dass v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 592

Civil Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 38500 of 2025

Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari (author) and one other Judge

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment dated 09.05.2025 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CMA No. 538 of 2023, affirming the removal order dated 24.11.2023 of the Dharmika Parishad, G.O.Ms. No. 581 dated 08.12.2023, and consequential order dated 19.01.2024.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 – Section 51 (removal of Mathadhipathi – framing of charges, opportunity of meeting charges, suspension, appeal to High Court), Section 152 (constitution of Dharmika Parishad), Section 55 (administration of Mutt properties).

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 (right to equality), Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), Article 142 (power of Supreme Court to do complete justice).

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order V Rule 17 (substituted service by affixation).

• Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Rules, 2009 – Rule 26 (appointment of committees from among Parishad members).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• Canara Bank v. V. K. Awasthy – Principles of natural justice: audi alteram partem requires precise and unambiguous notice, adequate time, and fair opportunity; citing Magna Carta and Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works.

• Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India – Delinquent cannot effectively defend himself unless copies of relevant statements and documents are furnished; mere inspection not sufficient.

• State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh – Breach of natural justice does not invariably invalidate proceedings unless prejudice is shown, except where mandatory procedural provisions conceive of public interest.

• M/S Neerja Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Janglu (Dead) – Substituted service by affixation under Order V Rule 17 CPC can only be validly executed on a house where the noticee actually and ordinarily resides; once State dispossesses a person, affixation is meaningless.

• The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (Shirur Mutt case) – Mahantship blends office and property, spiritual and temporal; both elements cannot be detached.

• Sri Sri Sri Lakshmana Yatendrulu v. State of A.P. – Applied Shirur Mutt principles to the 1987 Act.

• Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat – Article 142 powers not constrained by ordinary limitations; can be exercised to do complete justice.

• Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India – Article 142 is supplementary, fills legal and procedural gaps, not to supplant statutory scheme.

• Vineet Narain v. Union of India – Where there is vacuum or inaction, judiciary may step in till legislature acts.

3. Relevant Facts

The appellant, Arjun Dass, was a disciple of the then Mathadhipathi and was appointed Pujari in 1975, Adhikari in 1985, Interim Mahant in 1990, and finally permanent Mahant in 2000 after confirmation by the Akhada Panchayat and the Endowments Department. In 2002-2006, litigation established his right to manage secular affairs of the Mutt, confirmed by G.O.Ms.No.1678 dated 14.11.2006.

In 2017, based on newspaper reports, an enquiry was initiated. Despite interim protection from the High Court, the Commissioner of Endowments suspended the appellant in 2020, which was set aside in 2023. On 24.12.2021, the State appointed a screening committee; the appellant challenged it, and the writ petition was closed on the State's statement that no such proposal existed.

On 09.05.2023, the Dharmika Parishad (constituted under G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 13.08.2022 with 21 members, all State nominees or ex‑officio functionaries) resolved unanimously to prepare charges and suspension against the appellant. On 08.06.2023, the Parishad simultaneously: (i) framed 16 charges; (ii) suspended the appellant; (iii) appointed a 'Fit Person' to take over the Mutt. The Mutt premises, including the appellant's residence, were physically seized the same day.

The charge memo (27 pages) and 29 supporting documents (over 600 pages) were not served. The State claimed service by affixation on 09.06.2023 on the door of the appellant's residence (already under State control) – only six pages relating to the Fit Person's appointment were affixed. The State also claimed email service to the Mutt's email account, but the Fit Person had already taken charge by 13.06.2023. The appellant, through his advocate, sent three communications (17.07.2023, 24.07.2023, 31.07.2023) requesting documents and time. The Enquiry Committee (three members of the same Parishad) proceeded ex‑parte on 19.07.2023 and submitted a report on 01.08.2023 finding all 16 charges proved.

Show cause notice dated 19.10.2023 was served; the appellant submitted explanation on 03.11.2023 and requested fresh enquiry with documents. On 24.11.2023, the Dharmika Parishad passed the removal order under Section 51(2), confirmed by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.581 dated 08.12.2023. The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal under Section 51(4). The Supreme Court granted stay on 17.12.2025 and heard the matter.

4. Issues

Issue No. 1: Whether the proceedings culminating in the removal order suffered from a breach of the principles of natural justice, specifically non‑supply of charge memo and relied‑upon documents.

Issue No. 2: Whether the service by affixation on the door of premises already taken over by the State constituted valid service.

Issue No. 3: Whether the constitution of the Enquiry Committee from members of the same body that had pre‑decided the outcome violated the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua).

Issue No. 4: Whether the High Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 51(4) of the 1987 Act, failed to independently examine the procedural violations.

Issue No. 5: What relief should be granted – whether a remand to the same statutory body would be adequate or whether a case‑specific mechanism under Article 142 is required.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Principles of natural justice are mandatory in removal proceedings of a Mathadhipati (Paras 27-30).

The Court quoted extensively from Canara Bank v. V. K. Awasthy on the importance of audi alteram partem. Section 51(2) of the 1987 Act, by requiring that the Mathadhipati be given "an opportunity of meeting such charge, of testing the evidence adduced and of adducing evidence in his favour," impliedly mandates supply of all relied‑upon documents and materials. Without such supply, the opportunity to defend becomes illusory. Religious institutions involve public interest, so substantive compliance with natural justice is non‑negotiable.

B. Service by affixation on premises not in possession of the noticee is no service (Paras 31-33).

The State had taken physical possession of the Mutt premises, including the appellant's residence, on 08.06.2023 itself. The Panchanama and photographs showed only six pages (relating to the Fit Person) affixed on the door, not the 27‑page charge memo or the 600 pages of documents. The Court held that "to contend that service of the charge memo was completed by affixation on the door of the residence that is not in the possession of the Appellant is a legal absurdity." Relying on Neerja Realtors, substituted service under Order V Rule 17 CPC can only be validly executed on a house where the noticee actually and ordinarily resides. Once the State dispossesses an individual, constructive notice collapses.

C. The Enquiry Committee was not independent; pre‑decision shows bias (Paras 35-36).

The resolution dated 09.05.2023 of the Dharmika Parishad, even before charges were framed, unanimously resolved to prepare charges and suspension. The three‑member Enquiry Committee was constituted from the same Parishad members under Rule 26 of the 2009 Rules. The Court observed that Rule 26 is intended for administrative committees, not for disciplinary enquiry committees. An adjudicating authority cannot become investigator and decision‑maker. The history of repeated attempts by the State to take over the Mutt (since 2003) and the manner of enquiry created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

D. The High Court erred in failing to exercise full appellate jurisdiction (Para 34).

Section 51(4) vests the High Court with appellate jurisdiction, requiring independent consideration of objections and reasoned findings. The High Court presumed that the appellant had received documents because he replied to charges in detail. This presumption was ill‑founded. The defect in the enquiry process struck at the root of the proceedings; the High Court ought to have set aside the removal order on that ground alone, without going into the merits of charges.

E. Remand to the same statutory body would be futile; Article 142 invoked to create a case‑specific mechanism (Paras 41-47).

The Court identified four grounds for not remanding to the Dharmika Parishad: (i) the structural composition of the Parishad (all State nominees) would recreate the same conditions of taint; (ii) the statutory framework leaves a procedural vacuum – Section 51(2) prescribes no independent, neutral mechanism for conducting the enquiry; (iii) the High Court's 2006 judgment, affirmed by the Division Bench and implemented through G.O.Ms.No.1678 of 2006, is a binding determination that secular management vests in the appellant; (iv) the assurance of reconstitution of the Parishad within four weeks was not backed by a firm guarantee, and nearly two years had already elapsed without reconstitution. The appellant is 71 years old; the Mutt has been under a Fit Person for two years. Therefore, the Court exercised Article 142 to appoint an independent one‑man Enquiry Committee (retired District Judge) and an Administrative Committee to supervise the Mutt's affairs pending fresh enquiry.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• In removal proceedings of a Mathadhipati under Section 51 of the 1987 Act, the requirement of supplying all relied‑upon documents is not merely procedural but is a mandatory aspect of natural justice embedded in the statute itself. Non‑supply vitiates the entire proceeding, and prejudice need not be separately shown because the provision is conceived in public interest.

• Service by affixation under Order V Rule 17 CPC (or analogous statutory provisions) is invalid if the premises where affixation is made is not in the actual and ordinary residence of the noticee at the time of service. Where the State itself has taken over the premises and dispossessed the individual, affixation on that door is a legal absurdity and cannot constitute valid service.

• Rule 26 of the 2009 Rules, which allows appointment of committees from among members of the Dharmika Parishad, is intended for administrative committees, not for constituting an independent enquiry committee for disciplinary proceedings against a Mathadhipati. Using it for the latter purpose violates the principle of nemo judex in causa sua.

• The appellate power under Section 51(4) of the 1987 Act is a full appellate jurisdiction, not a supervisory or certiorari jurisdiction. The High Court must independently examine procedural violations and set aside the removal if the enquiry is found to be fundamentally unfair, without first assessing the merits of the charges.

• Under Article 142, the Supreme Court may, in exceptional cases where the statutory framework leaves a procedural vacuum and the existing institutional mechanism is structurally tainted, create a one‑time, case‑specific mechanism for conducting a fresh enquiry and supervising the administration of a religious institution, without supplanting the statutory scheme for all other purposes.

7. Court's Examination and Analysis

The Court first traced the long history of litigation between the appellant and the State, noting that despite judicial determinations in his favour (2006 High Court judgment confirmed in appeal and implemented by G.O.), the State continued to initiate proceedings against him, including suspension in 2020 (set aside by High Court in 2023) and the impugned removal in 2023.

The Court examined the service of the charge memo. It found from the State's own documents that only six pages (Fit Person's appointment) were affixed; the charge memo and supporting documents (over 600 pages) were never affixed. Moreover, the appellant's residence had already been taken over by the State on 08.06.2023, so affixation on that door could not have come to his notice. The email to the Mutt's address was ineffective because the Fit Person had taken charge of the Mutt and its email account by 13.06.2023.

The Court then examined the appellant's three communications (17.07.2023, 24.07.2023, 31.07.2023) requesting documents and time. The Enquiry Committee ignored these requests and proceeded ex‑parte on 19.07.2023, dismissing the 17.07.2023 communication as an unsigned letter on WhatsApp. The Court held this showed "deliberate disregard for the principles of natural justice."

The Court also noted that the Dharmika Parishad's resolution dated 09.05.2023, passed before any charge was framed, resolved unanimously that the appellant would be charged and suspended. This pre‑determination violated the rule against bias. The Enquiry Committee members were drawn from the same Parishad, further compounding the bias.

The High Court had presumed that because the appellant replied to charges in detail, he must have received the documents. The Supreme Court rejected this as an ill‑founded presumption, noting that the appellant could have replied based on his own knowledge and that the documents were never supplied.

Finally, the Court discussed the inappropriateness of remanding to the same statutory body, given its composition, the procedural vacuum in the Act, the pendency of a challenge to Section 152, and the advanced age of the appellant. It invoked Article 142 to appoint a retired District Judge as One‑man Enquiry Committee and a six‑member Administrative Committee (including retired judges, religious representatives, retired IPS, senior advocate, chartered accountant, and a State nominee) to supervise the Mutt's administration pending fresh enquiry. The appellant was restored as Mathadhipati but required to cooperate with the Administrative Committee.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a robust affirmation of natural justice in proceedings affecting religious office. It correctly holds that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed to expediency, especially when the State itself is the prosecuting authority. The Court's finding that service by affixation on a premises already taken over by the State is "legal absurdity" is both logical and necessary. The judgment also rightly distinguishes between administrative committees and enquiry committees, preventing the adjudicating authority from being its own investigator. The invocation of Article 142 to create a case‑specific mechanism is a creative and pragmatic solution to a structural problem, avoiding further delay and ensuring that a tainted body does not adjudicate the same matter again. The constitution of an Administrative Committee with diverse expertise (judicial, religious, administrative, financial) ensures that the Mutt's properties are protected during the pendency of the fresh enquiry.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not pronounce on the constitutional validity of Section 152 (composition of Dharmika Parishad) but leaves it to the pending High Court writ petition. This is proper. However, by noting that the Parishad's "structural composition re‑creates the very conditions of taint," the Court has strongly suggested its view, which may influence the High Court. That could be seen as a pre‑judgment, though the Court expressly refrained from ruling. Another concern is the cost of the Enquiry Committee and Administrative Committee (travel expenses, sitting fees) to be borne by the Mutt's funds. The Mutt may not have sufficient liquidity, but the Court presumably considered that.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in all cases involving removal of religious heads under similar endowments legislation across India. It sets a high bar for procedural fairness: supply of all documents, valid service, an independent enquiry mechanism, and full appellate review by the High Court. It also demonstrates that the Supreme Court is willing to use Article 142 to fashion remedies when the statutory framework is inadequate.

9. Final Outcome

The Civil Appeal was allowed.

• The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 09.05.2025 in CMA No. 538 of 2023 was set aside.

• The removal order dated 24.11.2023, the confirmation G.O.Ms.No.581 dated 08.12.2023, the consequential order dated 19.01.2024, and the Enquiry Committee report dated 01.08.2023 were all set aside.

• A One‑man Enquiry Committee comprising Mr. Boddepalli Rama Rao (retired District Judge) was appointed to conduct a fresh enquiry into the 16 charges, following the principles of natural justice and the directions of the Court (supply of documents, minimum four weeks for defence, opportunity to cross‑examine, etc.). The report to be submitted within one year to the Endowments Department.

• An Administrative Committee comprising six members (retired High Court Judge as Chairman, Swami Madhav Prapanna Charya, retired IPS officer, Senior Advocate, Chartered Accountant, and a State nominee) was constituted to supervise the Mutt's administration pending the fresh enquiry. The Committee shall prepare an inventory of properties, oversee preservation of records, track litigations, and ensure no alienation of property.

• The appellant was restored as Mathadhipathi and shall continue to hold that status during the pendency of the fresh enquiry. He shall cooperate with the Administrative Committee and its decisions shall be binding on him in administrative matters.

• The directions are case‑specific and not to be treated as precedent for other cases.

10. Practical Application

For Mathadhipathis or religious heads facing removal proceedings: Insist on proper service of the charge memo and all relied‑upon documents. If service is attempted by affixation, verify whether the premises are still in your actual possession. If the State has taken over the premises, argue that affixation is invalid. Request documents in writing and keep proof. If the enquiry committee is composed of members of the same body that initiated the proceedings, raise the ground of bias at the earliest stage. If the High Court dismisses your appeal on procedural irregularities, appeal to the Supreme Court citing natural justice violations.

For Endowments Departments and Dharmika Parishads: Ensure that before initiating removal proceedings, you supply a complete set of documents to the Mathadhipathi. Do not rely on affixation if the premises are under your control. Do not appoint enquiry committees from the same body that has already resolved to take action. Provide sufficient time (at least four weeks) for defence. If the High Court sets aside the removal on procedural grounds, do not delay reconstitution or appeal; instead, conduct a fresh enquiry with independent members. Failure to follow these steps will result in the proceedings being quashed and compensation or costs being awarded.

For High Courts exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 51(4): Treat the appeal as a full appellate remedy, not a supervisory one. Frame points for determination. First examine whether the enquiry proceedings complied with natural justice (supply of documents, valid service, opportunity to cross‑examine, independence of enquiry officer). If any fundamental procedural violation is found, set aside the removal without first assessing the merits of the charges. Do not presume that a detailed reply implies receipt of documents.

For lawyers representing religious heads: Immediately upon receiving a charge memo, file a detailed request for all relied‑upon documents. If not supplied, move the High Court under Section 51(4) challenging the proceedings on the ground of natural justice violation. Cite Arjun Dass and Kashinath Dikshita. If the removal order is passed without documents, argue that the entire proceeding is void ab initio.

For courts considering Article 142 relief: In cases where the statutory mechanism is structurally inadequate or tainted, and a simple remand would lead to further delay and injustice, consider appointing an independent enquiry committee and an administrative committee. Ensure that the religious head is restored to office (at least in status) during the pendency of the fresh enquiry, to avoid a fait accompli.

11. Court Lines

Line 1 (Principles of natural justice – Para 27, quoting Canara Bank):
"No one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation."

Line 2 (Supply of documents essential – Para 28, quoting Kashinath Dikshita):
"No one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies, how can the concerned employee prepare his defence, cross‑examine the witnesses, and point out the inconsistencies?"

Line 3 (Affixation on premises taken over by State – Para 31):
"To contend that service of the charge memo was completed by affixation on the door of the residence that is not in the possession of the Appellant is a legal absurdity. To hold otherwise would be to hold that the Authorities may take over a person's place of residence and then validly serve him with a legal notice by pasting it on the door of the residence it has taken over."

Line 4 (Pre‑decision and bias – Para 36):
"The apprehension of the bias in the matter cannot be ruled out... the manner in which the enquiry was done... an enquiry regarding the allegations against the Appellant ought to be done following the principles of natural justice by an independent body."

Line 5 (High Court's failure – Para 34):
"The defect pointed out in the present case pertains to the fairness of the enquiry process itself and, therefore, strikes at the root of the proceedings. Once such a foundational infirmity is established, the question whether charges may otherwise have been capable of being sustained does not arise for consideration at the appellate stage."

Line 6 (Article 142 – Para 43):
"The jurisdiction conferred by Article 142 is not a residuary power of general equity... it operates to fill legal and procedural gaps, and give effect to the statutory scheme, not to supplant it."

Line 7 (Mahantship – Para 45, quoting Shirur Mutt):
"In the conception of Mahantship, both the elements of office and property, of duties and personal interest, are blended together and neither can be detached from the other."

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For a Mathadhipathi facing removal: Document every step of the proceedings. Keep a diary of when you received (or did not receive) notices. If the State takes over your residence or office, immediately file a writ petition challenging the takeover. When a charge memo is issued, immediately request all relied‑upon documents in writing, by email, and by registered post. If documents are not supplied, move the High Court under Section 51(4) even before the enquiry is completed, seeking a stay of the proceedings. Do not participate in the enquiry without documents; instead, file a formal objection. If the enquiry proceeds ex‑parte, challenge the removal order on the ground of violation of natural justice. Cite Arjun Dass for the proposition that non‑supply of documents vitiates the entire proceeding regardless of merits.

For the Endowments Department: Before initiating removal, prepare a complete document list. Serve the charge memo and all documents together, by a verifiable method (e.g., registered post, personal service with acknowledgement). If the Mathadhipathi has been dispossessed, arrange for service at his new known address. Do not appoint an enquiry committee from the same body that resolved to take action. If the Parishad is composed entirely of State nominees, consider requesting an external independent enquiry officer. Give at least four weeks for defence. If the Mathadhipathi requests documents, supply them promptly. These steps will make the removal order virtually unchallengeable on procedural grounds.

For a High Court hearing an appeal under Section 51(4): First, examine the record to see if all documents were supplied and if service was valid. Do not rely on the fact that the appellant filed a reply – that could have been based on personal knowledge or incomplete information. If the charge memo is voluminous and the supporting documents are not annexed to the appeal record, remand to the trial court for a determination on service. If you find any procedural violation, set aside the removal order and remand for fresh enquiry with specific directions. Do not affirm a removal order that is procedurally flawed simply because some charges appear serious.

For a lawyer drafting a petition under Article 142: In cases where the statutory mechanism is structurally biased or the procedural framework is incomplete, request the Court to bypass the statutory body and appoint an independent enquiry committee. Provide strong evidence of institutional bias (e.g., resolutions passed before charges, history of repeated actions, composition of the body). Also argue that a simple remand would cause irreparable delay and that the religious head is elderly. Request restoration to office during the pendency of fresh enquiry. Be prepared to propose specific names of retired judges or other neutral persons for appointment.

For a religious institution (Mutt) that is being administered by a Fit Person: If a court sets aside the removal of the Mathadhipathi and restores him, but also appoints an Administrative Committee, ensure that the Committee functions strictly in a supervisory capacity and does not divest the Mathadhipathi of his spiritual functions. The Committee's role should be limited to protecting properties and overseeing administration, not interfering with religious rituals or the Mathadhipathi's relationship with disciples. If the Committee oversteps, move the court for clarification.