Case at a Glance
The Mathadhipati of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupati was suspended and then removed in 2023 by the Andhra Pradesh Dharmika Parishad after an enquiry committee found 16 charges proved in an ex parte enquiry. The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the removal on most charges. The Supreme Court set aside the removal, the confirming Government Order and the enquiry report, holding that removal of a Mathadhipati “is not an administrative act of ordinary character”, that service by affixation on premises the State had already seized was “a legal absurdity”, and that the enquiry was vitiated by denial of documents and bias. It appointed a retired District Judge to hold a fresh enquiry within a year and, under Article 142, an Administrative Committee to oversee the Mutt’s properties in the interim.
The appellant was appointed permanent Mahant of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupati under Section 53(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 in 2000. His tenure saw repeated litigation with the Endowments Department. In August 2022 the State constituted a 21-member Dharmika Parishad of State nominees and ex-officio officials. On 9 May 2023 the Parishad resolved to frame charges and suspend him, and on 8 June 2023 framed 16 charges — broadly relating to the management and alienation of Mutt property and funds, appointments, dues and litigation — suspended him, appointed a ‘Fit Person’ and seized the Mutt premises the same day.
A three-member enquiry committee proceeded ex parte from 19 July 2023 and reported on 1 August 2023 that all charges were proved. He was removed under Section 51(2) on 24 November 2023, confirmed by G.O.Ms. No. 581 on 8 December 2023, and steps were taken to appoint an interim Mahant. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 9 May 2025, held three charges not proved but upheld the rest and found no breach of natural justice.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the removal of the Mathadhipati vitiated by breach of natural justice and bias, and what relief should follow?
Why the Enquiry Failed the Test of Fairness
Justice J.K. Maheshwari, writing for the Bench, held that the removal of a Mathadhipati “is not an administrative act of ordinary character” and that “substantive compliance of audi alteram partem is non-negotiable.” Relying on Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India, (1986) 05 SC CK 0022, the Court reiterated that no one facing an enquiry can effectively meet the charges without copies of the relevant material. The 27-page charge memo and roughly 600 pages of documents were never validly served: service by affixation on a residence the State had itself taken over “is a legal absurdity.” The enquiry committee ignored repeated requests for documents and time and proceeded ex parte. The High Court erred in treating later hearings as curing a tainted enquiry and in presuming the appellant had the documents.
On bias, the Court held that “the adjudicating authority cannot itself become the investigator and also the decision maker”; Rule 26 of the 2009 Rules did not authorise a Dharmika Parishad committee to act as the enquiry body, and given the 9 May 2023 resolution and the history of proceedings, “the apprehension of the bias in the matter cannot be ruled out.” Remanding to a reconstituted Parishad would be futile given its structural composition. The Court also noted that keeping the office vested indefinitely in a Fit Person “would amount to a denial of the very concept of Mahantship.” Invoking Article 142, drawing on Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India and Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, and mindful of Article 26 as explained in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, (1954) 03 SC CK 0013, it fashioned an interim arrangement while expressly stating that it is not a precedent. The Court did not decide the merits of the charges.
What the Court Actually Held
- The removal order of 24 November 2023, G.O.Ms. No. 581, the enquiry report of 1 August 2023, the interim Mahant order and the High Court judgment were set aside; the Fit Person arrangement also stands set aside.
- A one-man enquiry committee — Mr. Boddepalli Rama Rao, retired District Judge — will hold a fresh enquiry at the court complex in Tirupati, with documents supplied, at least four weeks for a defence, a right to cross-examine, and a report within one year of document supply, at the Mutt’s expense.
- An Administrative Committee chaired by Justice (Retd.) Duppala Venkata Ramana will inventory Mutt property within three months, oversee records and litigation, and prevent any alienation, lease or encumbrance.
- The appellant continues as Mathadhipati with religious functions, bound by the Committee’s decisions, barred from alienating Mutt property without its permission, and with a right to appeal within one month against any fresh removal order.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It sets a high procedural bar for removing heads of religious institutions under endowment laws.
- It condemns sham service and ex parte enquiries by bodies that also act as prosecutor and judge.
- It balances fairness to the Mahant with protection of Mutt property through a court-appointed interim committee.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Religious Institutions
- Heads of mutts and trusts facing removal are entitled to full documents, time for a defence and a right to cross-examine.
- Service of charges on premises already seized by the State is not valid service.
- Interim arrangements can protect property without displacing the religious head entirely.
For Counsel
- Challenge enquiries where the authority that resolved to proceed also conducts the enquiry and decides — plead bias and pre-determination.
- Argue that post-decisional hearings cannot cure a tainted enquiry.
- Where the statutory body is structurally compromised, seek an independent enquiry instead of a remand.
Key Takeaways
- Removal of a Mathadhipati demands full natural justice.
- Affixation on State-seized premises is not valid service.
- Investigator and decision-maker cannot be the same.
- Fresh enquiry by a retired judge within one year, with an interim Administrative Committee.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court decide whether the charges against the Mahant were true?
No. It set aside the removal for breach of natural justice and bias, and ordered a fresh enquiry by a retired District Judge. The merits will be decided after that enquiry.
Who will manage the Hathiramji Mutt in the meantime?
The Mathadhipati continues with religious functions, while an Administrative Committee chaired by a retired High Court judge oversees property, records and litigation and must prevent any alienation.
Is this arrangement a precedent for other mutts?
The Court expressly said the interim directions under Article 142 are not to be treated as a precedent.
Conclusion
Arjun Dass v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2026) 05 SC CK 0531 insists that even where the State has concerns about a religious institution’s management, the head of that institution cannot be removed through an enquiry that withholds documents, proceeds ex parte and is run by the body that decided to act.
Practical takeaway: Removal proceedings under endowment laws must provide documents, time and an impartial enquiry; otherwise courts may set them aside and order an independent probe.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com