SRI ADI VISHESHWARA OF KASH! VISHWANATH TEMPLE, VARANASI AND ORS. ETC. v. THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

It is then contended that some of the Mahants are prevented from performing pooja. The appellants had not set up their case that as Pan- das/Archakas/priests, they were prevented from performing duties in rendering rituals/ceremonies services etc. They staked their claims as B Mahants which claims we have negatived. Interim direction was given by this Court not to prevent them from performing pooja as devotees. There- fore, that direction is made absolute and they will not be prevented from performing pooja as devotees. Section 22 takes care of any service being rendered as archaka (priest). "Archaka" has been defined in Section 4(2) C to mean any person who performs or conducts any worship, service, rituals in the Temple and includes a Pujari, if he was doing the same on the appointed date. By its necessary implication, if any of the appellants is found to be of good character, possessed of the requisite qualification and experience etc., he/they may continue as archaka/priest and may be ap- pointed by the Board. The further contention that it offends their right to livelihood guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution is devoid of any force. In view of the settled legal position that the legislature is empowered to enact the law regulating the secular aspect of the management of the Temple or the religious institution or endowment, panda/Archaka (Priest), by whatever name called, is not integral ·part of the _religion and performs all the religious tenets or ceremonies in a Temple a5 servant of the Temple They owe their existence to an appointment. They are servants of the Temple terminable on the ground of misconduct or unfitness to perform service, rituals/ceremonies in accordance with Hindu Sastras, customs and practices prevailing in the Temple handed down from centuries. On aboli- F tion, the right of the holder of the office or post stands extinguished. It does not vest in the State but is regulated by the Act. The need to pay compensation does not arise. However, by operation of Section 22, ar- chakas or a pandas found eligible to perform religious service (pooja) etc. are regulated and entitled to be considered for appointment and to conse- quential salary. As regards qualification of the Archaka G (Priest)/Panda/Pujari or Samarchaka at Lord Kashi Vishvanatha Temple, there is a great deal of unanimity among Dharmashastras that the .Pujari at Lord Vishwanath Temple should atleast have a graduation or equivalent degree with Sanskrit and subjects such as Veda, Dharmagama, Shaivagama and Purohitya. Though according to the scholars, it was· not initially H prescribed to have aupadhik Yogyata (educational qualification) for the

1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 2 S.C.R.

A Archak, Deval or the Samarchak at Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple, he should be proficient in Vedocharana, i.e., the proper incantation, delivery and pronunciation of Vedic mantras. He should practise Trikaal Sandhya. He should be conversant with all the Mantras, Srutis and Yandanas of Lord Sri Visheshwara. He should also be fully trained and conversant in -- Rudrashtadhyayi. It would appear that Dharmashastras recommend that B the process of selection for the Archakas of Kashi Vishwanath Temple should be undertaken by a committee of traditional Dharmashastras com- prising of_ a minimum of three renowned scholars who should be em- powered to select the Archakas or Samarchakas from the qualified candidates. As was held in Narayana's case, periodical training and con- C tinuing ed~catioa would improve and augment excellence.

The right to receive offerings from the pilgrims in incidental to the service rendered by the Arc;haka (priest). Independent of service, there is no right to receive offerings from a pilgrim or the devotee. Therefore, the regulation of rendering service and prohibition to receive offerings, though IJD may affect the livelihood of a pre-existing archaka, it being a regulatory measure, it is sequal or consequential tc. the abolition .. It is not a vested right as such but is a right. co tip led with duty to render service. When the service on customary basis is abolished, concomitantly right to receive ; offerings given by the pilgrims stands extinguished and prohibited and is vested in the deity, Lord Shiva. It is not an acquisition of their right but it has· only incidental and consequential effect. Equally, it is not a vested right in the individual panda/archaka/priest de hors the service. Rights of persons in service as archakas is not affected; on the other hand, Section 22 is subject to regulation and extends the right to earn livelihood guaranteed by Adicle 21.

The further· ~ontention .that the impugned Act is overboard and is vitiated with vice of discretionary power without any supervision or guidelines and is ultra vires, is devoid of any force. The Act has carefully formulated different principles, applied the same in the matter of nomina- G lion of the members of the Board, appointment of the Executive Commit- tee, the staff and proper and efficient management of the Temple. Even the discretionary powers are well \vithin the parameters laid under the Act. Even assuming that if any action is found to be in excess of the Statutory conferment of the power of wanting in quality that would be an individual H case which may be liable to challenge in an appropriate proceeding and

SRI ADI VISHESHWARA OF KASH! VISHWANATH 1EMPLEv. SfATE [K. RAMASWAMY. l.J 1127

for that reason the Act cannot be declared as ultra vires. A In view of the finding that Lord Sri Vishwanath Temple is not a denominational Temple and Hindus as such arc not denomination/sec- tion/sect nor the appellants are denominational worshippers, the conten- tion that Sections 6 and 3 cannot be read down so as to make the appellants as members of the Board under Section 6 of the Act, is without any force. B Similarly, it is difficult to accede to the contention that Section 6 must be read down to include those persons who profess denominational Hindu Shivaites practising as members of the Board. Equally, Sections 20(1) and (2) cannot be read down so as to give wider powers to the "archaka" defined in Section 4(2). Equally, Sections 22(2), 23(2)(b), 24(2) and 25(8) C cannot be read down so as to confer functional and financial respm; sibilities on the archaka. Thus considered, we hold that the Act does not suffer from any invalidity except to the extent indicated in the judgment.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without costs.

• R.P. Appeals dismissed .