The Madras High Court recently observed that the Smartha Brahmins were just a caste/community without any peculiarity specifically attributable to them that distinguished them from other Brahmins of the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, they could not be identified as a religious denomination and were not entitled to benefits under Article 26 of the Constitution. Justice R Vijayakumar of...
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Smartha Brahmins were just a caste/community without any peculiarity specifically attributable to them that distinguished them from other Brahmins of the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, they could not be identified as a religious denomination and were not entitled to benefits under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Justice R Vijayakumar of the Madurai Bench was considering an application made by some members belonging to the Smartha Brahmin community claiming minority status for an institution run by them. Observing that the appellants had failed to establish that they constitute a denomination as Smartha Brahmins in the state of Tamil Nadu, the court held that the suit was mainly filed only to wriggle out of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulations Act 1973 by invoking the benefits under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Background
The appellants are the original plaintiffs who had approached the Principal District Munsif Court for the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the benefits and privileges conferred under Article 25(1), Article 26, Article 29(1) and Article 30(1) of Indian Constitution in view of their minority character. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence the plaintiffs approached the High Court.
Contention of the Appellant
The appellants contended that the Smartha Brahmins have a particular philosophy of Advaitham propounded by Sri Adi Sankara. Their mode of worship and living was completely distinct from the mainstream Hindus. The ceremonies attendant upon the death of Smartha Brahmins were also different from that followed by mainstream Hindus. He relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (2014) 5 SCC 75 and the decision of division bench of Madras High Court in Marimuthu Deekshtar Vs. State 1952 1 MLJ Page 557 where the courts have held that Smartha Brahmins constitute a denomination.
The appellants thus contended that since Smartha Brahmins were a denomination, the institution was entitled to get protection under Article 26 of the Constitution. This protection could not be taken away just because the institution has received a grant from the State of Tamil Nadu.
Contention of the Respondent
The respondents contended that after the enactment of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institution Act 2004, any educational institution which claims minority status could approach the Commission for declaration of the minority status, and a civil suit for the same was not maintainable.
It was also contended that the Smartha Brahmins in the state of Tamil Nadu were not following any particular religious belief which was completely distinct from other Hindus. The fact that they had limited their prayer in the second appeal with regard to benefits and privileges under Article 26 of the Constitution will clearly demonstrate that the plaintiffs had given up their claim as minority status.
Courts Observation
The court observed that even though the suit was filed in a representative capacity, there were no records to show that the suit was instituted as contemplated under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. There was nothing to show that an application was filed to this effect seeking permission from the court to file the suit in a representative capacity.
Further, the oral evidence of the witnesses clearly establishes that Smartha Brahmins do not follow any distinct or different religious beliefs other than that of the Hindus following the mainstream Hindu religion. Whatever is said to be followed by the Smartha Brahmins is being followed by other Brahmins also.
The court drew attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in S.P.Mittal Vs. Union of India and others (1983) 1 SCC Page 51 where the court had observed as follows:
"80. The words "religious denomination" in Article 26 of the Constitution must take their colour from the word "religion" and if this be so, the expression "religious denomination" must also satisfy three conditions:(1) It must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, that is, a common faith;(2) common organisation; and(3) designation by a distinctive name"
This decision was followed by the Madras High Court in its later judgments also. The court held that in the present case, the appellants had not established that they were a collection of individuals who have a particular system of belief or doctrine. They had also not established that they have a common organisation or that they are having an independent designation or a distinctive name. Thus, they could not be construed as a denomination.
Case Title: Smartha Barhmins living in the State of Tamil Nadu practicing and propagating the Religious Philosophy and tents of Advaitha Philosophy through P.S Sundaram and others v. Union of India and others
Case No: S.A No. 1609 of 2000
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
Counsel for Appellants: Mr B Kumar Senior Counsel for Mr R Kannan
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Sankaranarayanan, ASG assisted by Mr. G Raja Raman, Central Govt. Standing Counsel (R1) and Mr. G Siva Raja Government Advocate (For R2 and R3)