Removal of a Mathadhipati must follow principles of natural justice, says Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that the removal of a Mathadhipati (head of a religious mutt) under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, must strictly follow the principles of natural justice, as it involves significant civil and religious rights affecting not just the individual but also the institution and its devotees.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar observed that the process of removing a Mathadhipati is not a routine administrative action but one that impacts substantive rights relating to a religious office and the spiritual vocation of the incumbent. 

The court emphasised that the Dharmika Parishad is duty-bound to ensure substantive compliance with the rule of audi alteram partem (hear the other side).

“Without supply of relied upon documents qua the allegation, if any, meaningful rebuttal could not be possible,” the bench said, adding that principles of natural justice must be adhered to as per the statute.

The court underscored that the constitutional guarantee of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution applies fully to such quasi-judicial proceedings. 

It noted that merely making a person aware of allegations is insufficient; they must be provided with the precise charges, evidentiary basis, and supporting material. 

“Supply of relevant documents constitutes the most elementary and fundamental requirement of procedural fairness,” the bench observed.

The judgment also addressed procedural lapses in service of notice. 

Referring to Order V Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court held that substituted service by affixation cannot be treated as a mere technicality and is valid only if done at the place where the person actually and ordinarily resides. 

Once the State takes control of the premises, the legal fiction of constructive notice by pasting on the door ceases to hold, it said.

The court clarified that the institution of Mahantship or Mathadhipati blends the elements of office and property, spiritual duties and personal interest. 

Any attempt to permanently separate religious functions from administrative ones, or to vest secular management with a third party indefinitely, would undermine the very concept of Mahantship, it held.

While Article 26 of the Constitution guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their religious affairs and property (subject to law), any action depriving the spiritual head of office must follow procedures that are fair, neutral, and minimally invasive, the bench said.

The May 29, 2026 ruling came on a civil appeal filed by Arjun Dass, who was removed as the Mathadhipati of the Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt in Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. 

The apex court set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order upholding his removal.

Arjun Dass, a disciple of the previous Mathadhipati Sri Devender Dassji Varu, had served as Pujari since 1975, rose to Adhikari in 1985, became Interim Mahant in 1990, and was appointed permanent Mathadhipati in 2000.

The court directed that Arjun Dass shall continue to hold the position of Mathadhipati and participate in the religious and spiritual activities of the Mutt.

In a fresh mechanism, the bench while recognising the religious, cultural, and historical importance of the Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt and the need for a fair resolution, invoked its powers under Article 142 to constitute an Administrative Committee to assist the Mathadhipati. 

The committee will be headed by Justice (Retd) Duppala Venkata Ramana, a former judge of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.

Other members include Swami Madhav Prapanna Charya, Manish Kapooria (IPS retd), senior advocate Y V Raviprasad, chartered accountant Manish Taskar, and a nominee of the Endowment Department.

The court also appointed retired District Judge Boddepalli Rama Rao as a one-man enquiry committee to independently probe allegations of sale of mutt properties, purchase of properties in personal name, and misappropriation of funds.

The bench stressed that devotees of the historic mutt deserve a resolution through a process that is both fair and seen to be fair.