Statutory Body Cannot Act As Both Investigator And Judge; Adjudicatory Process Must Be Neutrally Conducted: Supreme Court

Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated May 29, 2026, held that a statutory body cannot simultaneously act as the investigator, prosecutor, and judge in disciplinary proceedings. Setting aside the removal of the Mathadhipathi of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar observed that allowing an adjudicating authority to investigate its own charges violates the foundational principle of nemo judex in causa sua. The Court emphasized that such structural defects in a quasi-judicial process render the final outcome a "legal absurdity."

The appellant, Arjun Dass, approached the apex court challenging a High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment that upheld his removal from the post of Mathadhipathi. The removal followed an inquiry conducted by a three-member committee comprising members of the Dharmika Parishad—the very body that had resolved to frame charges against him. The appellant contended that the inquiry was biased, conducted ex-parte, and based on nearly 600 pages of documents that were never supplied to him.

The primary question before the Court was whether the inquiry proceedings conducted by the Dharmika Parishad suffered from an inherent conflict of interest and a breach of the principles of natural justice. The bench was also called upon to determine whether the existing statutory framework under the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act, 1987, provided a sufficiently neutral mechanism for removing a religious head.

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Double As Investigator

The Court took sharp exception to the Dharmika Parishad appointing its own members to the inquiry committee. It noted that Rule 26 of the 2009 Rules, which allows the Parishad to appoint committees from amongst its members, must be interpreted as referring to administrative functions and not disciplinary inquiries. The bench observed that if a body determines a course of action and then investigates it through its own members, the process loses its quasi-judicial character.

"A member of a body that has already collectively determined the course of action cannot then sit as an impartial enquiry officer."

Pre-Determination Vitiates Quasi-Judicial Power

The bench highlighted that the Dharmika Parishad had passed a resolution on May 9, 2023, directing the simultaneous preparation of charges and a suspension order before any inquiry had even commenced. This, the Court held, revealed that the entire process was pre-determined and not a genuine exercise of statutory power. It noted that the "reflex of bias" was evident from the sequence of events and the manner in which the state sought to control the Mutt's secular affairs.

Court Rejects 'Service By Affixation' On Seized Premises

While the State argued that the charge memo was served by affixing it to the appellant's residence, the Court found that the authorities had already taken physical possession of the premises before the purported service. The bench termed this a "legal absurdity," holding that the State cannot dispossess an individual and then claim to have served him notice by pasting it on the door of the building it now controls. This conduct, the Court remarked, deprived the appellant of any meaningful chance to defend himself.

"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."

Structural Gaps In The Endowments Act

The Court identified a "procedural vacuum" at the heart of the 1987 Act, noting that while Section 51(2) empowers the removal of a Mathadhipathi, it prescribes no independent or neutral mechanism for the preceding inquiry. The bench observed that remanding the matter back to the same body would be a "futile exercise in procedural circularity" because the structural composition of the Dharmika Parishad re-creates the very conditions of taint found in the original inquiry.

Invocation Of Article 142 For Complete Justice

In light of the inherent bias and the advanced age of the appellant, the Court invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to bypass the statutory tribunal framework. It held that when an existing institutional framework is "structurally unfit" to ensure an unbiased enquiry, the judiciary must step in to provide a one-time solution that preserves institutional integrity and ensures fair operation.

"Article 142 operates to fill legal and procedural gaps, and give effect to the statutory scheme, not to supplant it. The Court must fashion a case-specific mechanism to bridge structural gaps where the institutional framework is inherently unfit."

Independent Inquiry And Administrative Oversight

To balance the competing interests, the Court appointed Mr. Boddepalli Rama Rao, a retired District Judge, as a one-man independent enquiry committee to examine the charges afresh. Furthermore, while restoring the appellant to his office as Mathadhipathi, the Court constituted a high-level Administrative Committee to assist and oversee the secular management of the Mutt. This committee includes a retired High Court Judge, a retired IPS officer, and a representative of the religious tradition.

The Supreme Court concluded that the removal order, the confirmatory government order, and the High Court’s judgment could not be sustained. By setting aside these orders, the Court ensured that the appellant is restored to his spiritual office while facing a neutral inquiry. The bench reiterated that the office of a Mathadhipathi blends both duty and property, and any deprivation of such office must be done through procedures that are demonstrably fair and neutral.

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026