Removal Of Mathadhipati Vitiated If Relied-Upon Documents Not Supplied; Service By Affixation On Seized Premises Is A Legal Absurdity: Supreme Court

"To hold that the Authorities may take over a person’s place of residence and then validly serve him with a legal notice by pasting it on the door of the residence it has taken over is a legal absurdity, " Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment dated May 29, 2026, has set aside the removal of the Mathadhipati of the Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, holding that the quasi-judicial process was "vitiated by multiple violations of the principles of natural justice."

A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the right to respond to a charge, guaranteed by Section 51(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, is rendered nugatory if the delinquent is not provided with the evidence forming the foundation of the action.

The appellant, Arjun Dass, the 21st Mahant of the historic Mutt in Tirupathi, had challenged his 2023 removal by the Dharmika Parishad and a subsequent High Court order upholding the same. The Apex Court found that the authorities failed to supply nearly 600 pages of relied-upon documents and conducted the enquiry ex-parte despite the appellant’s documented requests for more time due to ill health.

The dispute traces its origin to 1970, with the appellant being appointed as the permanent Mahant in 2000. Following years of litigation with the Endowments Department over the control of Mutt properties, the Dharmika Parishad initiated removal proceedings in 2023 based on 16 charges including financial misappropriation and violation of monastic customs. After an ex-parte enquiry, the Parishad ordered his removal, which was later confirmed by the State Government and affirmed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in May 2025.

The primary question before the court was whether the removal proceedings and the High Court’s judgment suffered from a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice. The court also examined whether the composition of the Enquiry Committee from within the Dharmika Parishad created a structural bias and a conflict of interest.

Natural Justice Non-Negotiable In Removal Of Religious Heads

The Court emphasized that the removal of a Mathadhipati is not an administrative act of ordinary character as it involves substantive civil rights and the constitutional guarantee of procedural fairness. Referring to the "audi alteram partem" rule, the bench noted that the guarantee of fairness under Article 14 applies with full force to such quasi-judicial proceedings.

The bench relied on the precedent in Canara Bank Vs. V. K. Awasthy, noting that natural justice is "the administration of justice in a common-sense liberal way." The court held that notice is the first limb of this principle and must be precise and unambiguous to allow a party to determinatively meet the case against them.

Service By Affixation On Premises Already Seized Is Void

The Court dealt extensively with the Respondents' claim that the charge memo was served by affixing it to the door of the Mahant's residence. The bench found it "impossible to accept" this contention because the Endowments Department had already physically seized the Mutt premises and the residence the day before the purported service.

Invoking the settled law in M/S Neerja Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Janglu, the Court held that substituted service can only be executed where the noticee actually resides. "Once the State itself dispossesses an individual and assumes total control of the premises, the legal fiction of constructive notice collapses," the bench observed.

High Court Erred In Presuming Possession Of Documents

The Supreme Court expressed its inability to concur with the High Court’s approach, which had presumed that the appellant "must have" had the documents because he replied to the charges in detail. The Apex Court clarified that the defect pertained to the fairness of the enquiry process itself, which strikes at the root of the proceedings.

The bench noted that the charge memo of 27 pages was accompanied by 29 supporting documents running over 600 pages, which were never duly served. "The intention of the legislature was clear that without supply of relied upon documents qua the allegation, if any, meaningful rebuttal could not be possible," the judgment stated.

Structural Taint In Dharmika Parishad Composition

The Court scrutinized the constitution of the Enquiry Committee, which consisted of members of the very body—the Dharmika Parishad—that had pre-decided to charge and suspend the appellant. The bench observed that a member of a body that has already collectively determined a course of action cannot later sit as an impartial enquiry officer.

Referring to Rule 26 of the 2009 Rules, the Court held that such committees are meant for administrative tasks and not for conducting disciplinary enquiries. The bench warned that allowing an adjudicating authority to become the investigator and the decision-maker would render natural justice principles nugatory.

> "An opportunity afforded on the basis of a tainted enquiry report, without supply of the relied-upon documents and without an independent appreciation of evidence, cannot substitute for a valid enquiry."

Exercise Of Plenary Powers Under Article 142

While the ordinary course would have been a remand to the Dharmika Parishad, the Court found that a "procedural vacuum" existed because the 1987 Act prescribes no independent, neutral mechanism for enquiries. To avoid "procedural circularity" and systemic vulnerabilities, the Court decided to fashion a one-time mechanism.

Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the bench appointed Mr. Boddepalli Rama Rao, a retired District Judge, as a one-man independent enquiry committee. The Court also constituted a high-powered Administrative Committee, including a retired High Court Judge and a representative of the Hindu religious tradition, to assist the restored Mahant in managing the Mutt's secular affairs.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, the removal order, and the appointment of a 'fit person.' The appellant is restored as the Mathadhipati, subject to the supervision of the newly formed Administrative Committee and the fresh enquiry to be completed within one year.

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026