Read Time: 05 minutes

The Karnataka High Court today dismissed a PIL petition questioning the legality of anointing a 16-year-old minor as the Matadhipathi (chief pontiff) of the Udupi Shiroor Mutt community.

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said that it need not interfere with essential religious practises that have been there since time immemorial.  In addition to this, the court stated that it cannot rewrite the religious practice that has been in place for 800 years as long as it does not violate the constitution.

The Court further noted that in the present case, Shirur Mutt is a religious denomination and as per the essential religious practices, the minor boy who has been appointedMatathipathi/Chief Pontiff became a sanyasi. Therefore, it is an essential religious practice and by no stretch of imagination violative of constitution.

The court held that a Division Bench of Madhya Pradhesh High Court in the case of Akash Mar Seva Trust and another vs State of Madhya Pradesh which dealt with a similar issue declined to interfere in an essential religious practise which was continuing since time immemorial. 

The court had earlier appointed Naganand, Senior Advocate, as amicus curie in the matter. The amicus opined that for purposes of religion or religious rites and usages that have the protection of the Constitution as also international treaties, a person cannot be presumed to be a minor only for the reason that he is less than 18 years of age.

The court held the above in a petition filed by the managing trustee of Shiroor Mutt Bhakta Samiti, Udupi, represented by Lathavya Acharya. The petition questionined the appointment of a 16-year-old boy as the Chief Pontiff of the Mutt Community in Udupi. 

The petition sought for action under the provisions of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, asserting that the minor boy is not capable of exercising free consent and is not competent to contract in terms of Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The petitioners had contended that anointing a minor as chief pontiff amounts to imposing material abandonment on the child, which is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Case Name: PL Acharya vs State of Karnataka and ors

Edited by Special Correspondent Thyagarajan Narendran