Arjun Dass v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2026 INSC 592 - AP HR&CE Act - Removal Of Mathadhipati

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - The removal of a Mathadhipati from the office of the head of a religious institution is not an administrative act of ordinary character. It involves substantive civil rights involving the right to religious office and to carry on one’s spiritual vocation.  Where a Mathadhipati is going to be removed, it is incumbent upon the Dharmika Parishad to follow the principles of natural justice since religious institutions connected to the Mutt which is under the control of Mathadhipati or Trustee and consequently, the public at large, may also be affected. Therefore, in such a situation, substantive compliance of audi alteram partem is non-negotiable- Without supply of relied upon documents qua the allegation, if any, meaningful rebuttal could not be possible. Therefore, in terms of the language used in the Statute, principles of natural justice are required to be adhered to in the sense as specified. (Para 27-29)

Constitution of India – Article 14 - Quasi Judicial Proceedings - The constitutional guarantee of fairness in procedure, enshrined in the principle of audi alteram partem and evinced from Article 14 of the Constitution of India, applies with full force to such quasi-judicial proceedings. (Para 27) Principles of Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem — Unless the person proceeded against is made aware of the precise allegations, the evidentiary basis thereof, and the material forming the foundation of the proposed action, the opportunity to defend becomes illusory rather than real, and supply of relevant documents constitutes the most elementary and fundamental requirement of procedural fairness as no person can be expected to answer a case which is not fully disclosed to him. (Para 28)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order V Rule 17 (Substituted Service) — Substituted service by affixation cannot be turned into an empty technicality and can only be validly executed on a house where the noticee actually and ordinarily resides at the time of service, and once the State itself dispossesses an individual and assumes total control of the premises, the legal fiction of constructive notice by pasting on the door collapses. (Para 32)

Constitution of India – Article 142 (Plenary Power to Do Complete Justice) — The powers conferred by Article 142 are supplementary in nature, not constrained by the ordinary limitations of statutory remedies, operate to fill legal and procedural gaps and give effect to the statutory scheme, and may be invoked to bridge structural gaps where the existing institutional framework is inherently or structurally unfit to remedy an infirmity, by fashioning a one‑time, case‑specific mechanism for a fresh enquiry. (Paras 43–44, 42) 

Hindu Religious Endowments – Concept of Mathadhipati / Mahantship — In the conception of Mahantship or Mathadhipati, both the elements of office and property, of duties and personal interest, are blended together and neither can be detached from the other, and any arrangement which seeks to permanently bifurcate the religious functions of a Mathadhipati from the administrative and secular functions, or vests the latter in a Fit Person or Custodian for an indefinite period notwithstanding that the lawful Mathadhipati continues in office, would amount to a denial of the very concept of Mahantship. (Paras 45–46)

Constitution of India – Article 26 (Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs) — Article 26 guarantees to a religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion and, subject to law, to administer its property, and while this does not preclude the State from regulating the administration of math property through validly enacted laws, it requires that any deprivation of the office of the spiritual head be effected only through procedures that are demonstrably fair, neutral, and minimally invasive. (Para 47)