Judgments

S P MITTAL VS UNION OF INDIA : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in S. P. Mittal Vs. Union of India (1983)1SCR 729 held that Sri Aurobindo Society was not a religious denomination.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Sri Aurobindo, a freedom fighter and philosopher set up his meditation and yoga Ashram at Pondicherry. Madam L. Alfassa, a frech lady,  became his disciple and later known as mother. The disciples of Aurobindo formed a society known as Sri Aurobindo Society in 1960. The society is distinct from Aurobindo Ashram. Sri Aurobindo Society preaches and propagates the ideals and teaching of Ari Aurobindo through its numerous centres scattered throughout India. A cultural township known as Auroville was also set up. Sri Aurobindo society received large amount of funds from different orgnisations in India and abroad for development of township. After death of mother, there was mismanagement and irregularity in running of project. Keeping the international nature of project, the Union Government  acquired the management and control of Auroville vide an ordinance which was replaced by Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980.

Constitutional validity of the Act was challenged, which reached finally to the Supreme Court.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

(i) Whether Parliament has legislative competence to enact the impugned statute ?

It was contended that Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980 was a law related with State  List and as such beyond legislative competence of Parliament. It was contended by the Petitioners that the Act falls under Entry 32 of List II of seventh schedule. The Supreme Court held that the Act does not even incidentally fall under Entry 32 of List II as it is no way related to constitution, regulation or winding up of society.  Even if the subject matter of the impugned Act is not covered by any specific entry of List I or III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution it would in any case be covered by the residuary entry 97 of List I.

(ii) Whether impugned act infringes Articles 25, 26, 29 and 30 of the Constitution ?

The Supreme Court observed that the term “religion”  has been considered in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Math wherein following  proposition of law was held :

(a) Religious means a system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion as conducive to their spiritual well being.

(b) A religion is not merely an opinion, doctrine or belief. It has its outward expression in acts as well.

(c) Religion need not be theistic.

(d) “Religious denomination” means a religious sect or body having a common faith and orgnisation and designated by a distinctive name.

(e) A law which takes away the rights of administration from the hands of a religious denomination altogether and vests in another authority would amount to violation of the right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 26.

“Religious denomination” takes color from word religion and it should satisfy three conditions-

(a) It must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive or their spiritual well-being, that is, common faith.

(b) Common organization

(c) Designation by distinct name

The Supreme Court held that on the basis of Memorandum of Association of the Society several application made by the Society claiming exemption under Section 35 and Section 80 of the Income Tax Act, the repeated utterings of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother that the Society and Auroville were not religious institution. There is no room of doubt that neither the society nor Auroville constitute a religious denomination and teaching of Sri Aurobindo only represented his philosophy and not a religion.

The Supreme Court held that even if it is assumed that society was a religious denomination, the impugned act has not violated Article 25 or Article 26.  The impugned act does not curtail the freedom of conscience and right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion enshrined under Article 25. Article 26 confers right to religious denomination to establish, maintain institution for religious and charitable purpose and manage its own affairs. The impugned Act has not taken away the right of management in matters of religion of a religious denomination. The impugned had taken over only secular aspects of the society.

(iii) Whether impugned act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?

The Supreme Court held that on account of the uniqueness of the institution and on account of the involvement of the Government and stake being high one about public funds, Parliament could take a particular institution as a class in itself. Impugned Act has not violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

______________________________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *